BC planning-with-files
Persistent file-based planning for multi-step AI-agent work. Keeps task_plan.md, findings.md, and progress.md on disk; lifecycle hooks inject selected project planning context. Automatic recovery reads project planning files only. Explicit session-catchup.py --metadata reads same-project local agent session records and emits aggregate counts only; --replay may emit bounded nonce-framed excerpts. Optional gated mode can request continuation only when the host supports it and never runs commands declared in Markdown. The skill has no network upload path. Use for research or work needing 5+ tool calls.
As a process C 59/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
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 skill asks for more than the task needs: broad tool access, credential environment variables, binaries. Every extra permission widens the damage from a mistake or a compromise.
Narrow allowed-tools and the variable list to the minimum; replace binaries with readable sources or scripts.
How to improve
- The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
- 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 · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
medium Broad scope
meta-broad-allowed-toolsSKILL.md:1Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bashallowed-tools: Read Write Edit Bash Glob Grep
Files scanned: 32. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 8655 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/
Process rating: all ten parameters 59/100
- 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. 21 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Execution cost. Instruction body is 8655 tokens: crowds the task out of the window
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 68 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 6 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 17 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (5 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
- -311 of 21 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 606: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 45 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 68 items
- +4Has examples (12 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 71.