BC code-delegate
面向团队与企业的高级代码委派工具,在免费版基础上扩展批量委派、并行执行、权限治理等能力。核心能力: - 多任务并行委派与任务队列管理 - 写入保护插件与权限治理 - 团队协作会话与任务分发 - 委派质量审计与代码审查报告 - 批量测试验证与回归测试 适用场景: - 企业级批量代码重构 - 多模块并行开发与测试 - 代码质量治理与审计追踪 差异化: - 兼容免费版全部能力,无缝升级 - 支持多任务并行与队列管理 - 提供权限治理与审计能力 - 优先技术支持与更新通道
面向团队与企业的高级代码委派工具,在免费版基础上扩展批量委派、并行执行、权限治理等能力。核心能力: - 多任务并行委派与任务队列管理 - 写入保护插件与权限治理 - 团队协作会话与任务分发 - 委派质量审计与代码审查报告 - 批量测试验证与回归测试 适用场景: - 企业级批量代码重构 - 多模块并行开发与测试 -…
As a process C 53/100 · 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 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 · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
medium Dangerous commands
cmd-persistenceSKILL.md:99Persistence mechanism (cron / launchd / scheduled task / autorun registry) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)"LaunchAgents/",
quoted
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 "slug" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "displayName" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "summary" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "edition" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "tools" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "homepage" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "suggested_price" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "pricing_tier" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "pricing_model"
Process rating: all ten parameters 53/100
- 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
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 11 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1960 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
- low 11 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
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 236: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 35 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 11 items
- +4Has examples (17 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 70.