AD coda
Interact with Coda.io docs, tables, rows, pages, and automations via the Coda REST API v1. Use when the user wants to read, write, update, or delete data in Coda docs. Also use when they mention "Coda", "Coda doc", "Coda table", "Coda rows", "Coda API", "sync to Coda", "read from Coda", "write to Coda", "Coda automation", "Coda pages", "Coda formulas", "share Coda doc", or "Coda permissions". Covers docs, pages, tables, columns, rows, formulas, controls, folders, permissions, publishing, automations, and analytics.
As a process D 47/100 · Unfinished process — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches
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 · 2
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 2
-
medium Exfiltration
net-credential-useSKILL.md:82Credential used in a network call (verify the destination is the intended service)curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $CODA_API_TOKEN" \
-
medium Exfiltration
net-credential-useSKILL.md:88Credential used in a network call (verify the destination is the intended service)curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $CODA_API_TOKEN" \
Files scanned: 4. 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 47/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (coda) differs from the folder (coda-io)
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Steps. 18 steps
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 790 tokens
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- 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
- +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
- +5Description quotes 12 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 520: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 8 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 18 items
- +4Has examples (3 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)
- +3All 1 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 96.