BB devialet
Control Devialet Phantom speakers via HTTP API. Use for: play/pause, volume control, mute/unmute, source selection, and speaker status. Requires DOS 2.14+ firmware. Works with Phantom I, Phantom II, Phantom Reactor, and Dialog.
As a process B 67/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, failures and branches, progress reporting
What is at stake
Medium-severity findings: the skill is probably honest, but read what alarmed the scanner.
Below is the worst case for this category. The finding here is medium: the guard saw a sign, not a proof.
The instructions or scripts send data out: environment variables, keys, file contents, chat history. You may never notice, because the agent performs the upload as "part of the task".
If the upload is not needed for the task, remove it: catalogs flag such skills and delist them. If it is needed, name the destination explicitly, say what leaves the machine, and give the user a switch.
How to improve
- 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 · 3
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 3
-
medium Exfiltration
net-credential-usescripts/spotify.sh:198Credential used in a network call (verify the destination is the intended service)curl -s -X PUT "$url" -H "Authorization: Bearer $token"
-
medium Exfiltration
net-credential-usescripts/spotify.sh:210Credential used in a network call (verify the destination is the intended service)curl -s -X PUT "$url" -H "Authorization: Bearer $token"
-
medium Exfiltration
net-credential-usescripts/spotify.sh:223Credential used in a network call (verify the destination is the intended service)curl -s -X PUT "$url" -H "Authorization: Bearer $token"
Files scanned: 6. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 67/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 19 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 650 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
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
- -31 of 3 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 227: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 9 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 19 items
- +4Has examples (3 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 85.