BB spotify-linux
Spotify CLI for headless Linux servers. Control Spotify playback via terminal using cookie auth (no OAuth callback needed). Perfect for remote servers without localhost access.
As a process B 68/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, running it twice
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 contains commands that delete files, rewrite disks or execute code fetched from the network. The agent may run them without asking if it believes the instructions require it.
Replace destructive commands with safe equivalents that ask for confirmation, scope them to one folder, and stop piping curl into a shell: pin a version and a checksum.
How to improve
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
- 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 · 2
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 2
-
medium Dangerous commands
cmd-shell-rcSKILL.md:37Writes to a shell startup fileecho 'export PATH=$PATH:/usr/local/go/bin:~/go/bin' >> ~/.bashrc
-
medium Dangerous commands
cmd-shell-rcSKILL.md:49Writes to a shell startup fileecho 'export PATH=$PATH:~/go/bin' >> ~/.bashrc
Files scanned: 2. 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") - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "homepage"
Process rating: all ten parameters 68/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 4 mutating operations with no state check
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 85Steps. 18 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Failures and branches. 2 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1223 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 10 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
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 176: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 21 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 18 items
- +4Has examples (10 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 71.