BC subagent-overseer
You spawned 4 sub-agents. One died 20 minutes ago. You're still waiting. Overseer watches them so you don't have to — zero tokens, pure OS-level process checks. No polling loops, no wasted heartbeats.
As a process C 51/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
How to improve
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
For the model run — optional
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 5
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 5
-
low Dangerous commands
cmd-background-processscripts/overseer.sh:330Starts a background / autostarted processsetsid jarvis "No active sub-agents. Overseer watching." &>/dev/null &
-
low Dangerous commands
cmd-background-processscripts/overseer.sh:337Starts a background / autostarted processsetsid jarvis "$SUBAGENT_COUNT agents active. $CHANGED files changed: $RECENT." &>/dev/null &
-
low Dangerous commands
cmd-background-processscripts/overseer.sh:339Starts a background / autostarted processsetsid jarvis "$SUBAGENT_COUNT agents active. $CHANGED files changed." &>/dev/null &
-
low Dangerous commands
cmd-background-processscripts/overseer.sh:345Starts a background / autostarted processsetsid jarvis "Warning: $STUCK_COUNT agents appear stuck. No file changes." &>/dev/null &
-
low Dangerous commands
cmd-background-processSKILL.md:57Starts a background / autostarted processsetsid scripts/overseer.sh \
Files scanned: 3. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-no-whendescription does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when")
Process rating: all ten parameters 51/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 4 mutating operations with no state check
- 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash) that frontmatter does not declare
- 100Steps. 17 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1898 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- low The response is described with custom markup (8 tags): a typed call is more reliable
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 200: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 12 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 17 items
- +4Has examples (5 code blocks)
- +3All 1 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 75.
External checks
ClawHub: suspicious
The skill appears purpose-aligned, but its local background monitor uses unsafe state-file and PID-file handling that deserves review before installation.
LLM: suspicious (high) · 9 Sept 2026