BC environment-setup-guide
Guide developers through setting up development environments with proper tools, dependencies, and configurations
Guide developers through setting up development environments with proper tools, dependencies, and configurations
As a process C 54/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, failures and branches, 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
- 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 · 5
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 5
-
medium Dangerous commands
cmd-shell-rcSKILL.md:173Writes to a shell startup fileecho 'export PATH=~/.npm-global/bin:$PATH' >> ~/.bashrc
-
medium Dangerous commands
cmd-privilegeSKILL.md:272Privilege escalation / world-writable permissionssudo sh get-docker.sh
-
medium Dangerous commands
cmd-shell-rcSKILL.md:399Writes to a shell startup fileecho 'export PATH=~/.npm-global/bin:$PATH' >> ~/.bashrc
-
low Exfiltration
read-dotenvSKILL.md:140Reads a .env filecp .env.example .env
-
low Exfiltration
read-dotenvSKILL.md:454Reads a .env filecp .env.example .env
Files scanned: 1. 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 54/100
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 6 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, python, node) that frontmatter does not declare
- 60Steps. 65 steps, 7 vague phrases
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2899 tokens
- 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)
- +3Description length 112: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -2localhost URLs: will not work for another user
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Structure: 25 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 65 items
- +4Has examples (9 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 79.