📦

task-observer

Name: task-observer
Author: rebelytics

v3.5.0 Révision du contenu r1 Critique 🌐 Accès réseau📁 Accès au système de fichiers🔑 Variables d’environnement⚙️ Commandes externes

Capture Workflow Lessons and Improve Skills

Useful workflow lessons disappear between work sessions. Task Observer records reusable observations and guides reviews that produce staged skill updates.

Prend en charge: Claude Codex Code(CC)

⚠️ 38 Médiocre

Maintain this Skill? Claim it ⚠️ 38 Médiocre

N’installez pas automatiquement ce Skill.

La politique de référence exige un examen par un opérateur avant toute action d’installation.

Installer avec mon Agent

Copiez cette demande dans votre Agent. Elle contient la page Skill de référence et le manifeste.

Demande d’agent

Review the Skillstore skill "task-observer" from https://skillstore.io/skills/rebelytics-task-observer.md and its manifest at https://skillstore.io/api/skills/rebelytics-task-observer/manifest. Verify the artifact. Do not auto-install. Inspect the skill and report your findings, then wait for an operator or manual installation decision.

Votre Agent doit toujours présenter son plan et demander toute confirmation exigée par la politique de sécurité.

Ressources lisibles par les agents

Utilisez ces liens lorsqu’un Agent IA, un crawler ou un script a besoin d’un contexte propre au lieu de lire toute la page.

Détail Markdown GET /skills/rebelytics-task-observer.md manifest signé GET /api/skills/rebelytics-task-observer/manifest lockfile signé GET /api/skills/rebelytics-task-observer/lockfile

Tester

Utilisation de « task-observer ». Record that the assistant skipped verification after changing an existing workflow.

Résultat attendu:

Issue: The workflow changed without checking its existing verification requirements.
Suggested improvement: Add a verification checkpoint before handing over the result.
Principle: Verify required checks before declaring a changed workflow complete.

Utilisation de « task-observer ». Review the ten oldest open observations and summarize proposed actions.

Résultat attendu:

Reviewed ten observations and grouped repeated findings by target skill.
Prepared staged updates for findings with sufficient evidence.
Left unresolved findings open and recorded the evidence still needed.
Installed skills remain unchanged pending review and installation.

Utilisation de « task-observer ». Check whether a legacy observation log is ready for conversion.

Résultat attendu:

Check-only review identified ambiguous metadata for human review.
Converted entries will need sibling-check metadata that the legacy format did not contain.
No files were changed during the check.

Audit de sécurité

Critique

v1 • 04/10/2026 Ouvrir le rapport versionné

Of 400 supplied findings, 399 are false positives; one release command exposes shell injection through direct tag interpolation. A critical semantic finding identifies instructions to retry denied writes through another tool. No evidence found of credential exfiltration; 228 omitted static matches remain unconfirmed and require manual review before automatic publication. Static review was capped at 400/628 representative findings; omitted static matches are unconfirmed, so automatic publishing stays disabled until manual review.

Fichiers analysés

10,516

Lignes analysées

Éléments à examiner

Faux positifs ignorés

Préoccupations de sécurité confirmées (1)

Critique

SKILL.md:356-362 SKILL.md:112-119 references/environments.md:810-820

Prompt Injection Attempt Detected

The core says "a classifier can deny one interface while allowing another" and directs agents to "try a second tool reaching the same path". This instruction encourages completing denied writes through another interface, treating permission decisions as noise rather than authorization boundaries. It conflicts with the reference guidance that prohibits alternate-tool retries for denied hook installs.

The core explicitly links denied writes to alternate-tool retries and dismisses classifier denials as noise. Separate no-bypass guidance does not remove this conflicting instruction.

Éléments d’évaluation des capacités (1)

Il s’agit de capacités locales réelles qui peuvent être attendues pour cette compétence ; elles nécessitent donc un examen, mais ne sont pas comptabilisées comme comportement malveillant confirmé.

Élevé

.github/workflows/release-bundle.yml:27

Temp directory access

run: gh release upload "${{ github.event.release.tag_name }}" /tmp/bundle/task-observer.skill --clob

The release tag is interpolated directly into shell source, so a tag containing command substitution executes commands with the release token. Temporary staging is ordinary, but this upload command exposes a release-workflow injection risk.

Facteurs de risque

🌐 Accès réseau (10)

.claude-plugin/marketplace.json:2 .claude-plugin/marketplace.json:6 .claude-plugin/plugin.json:2 .claude-plugin/plugin.json:8 .claude-plugin/plugin.json:10 .claude-plugin/plugin.json:11 .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml:4 README.md:9 references/skill-authoring.md:1278 references/weekly-review.md:968

📁 Accès au système de fichiers (50)

.github/workflows/release-bundle.yml:18 .github/workflows/release-bundle.yml:19 .github/workflows/release-bundle.yml:20 .github/workflows/release-bundle.yml:21 .github/workflows/release-bundle.yml:23 .github/workflows/release-bundle.yml:27 .github/workflows/tessl-publish.yml:51 .github/workflows/tessl-publish.yml:54 references/environments.md:503 references/environments.md:506 references/environments.md:517 references/environments.md:533 references/environments.md:513 references/environments.md:517 references/environments.md:536 references/environments.md:503 references/environments.md:506 references/environments.md:517 references/environments.md:365 references/environments.md:723 references/environments.md:1017 references/environments.md:365 references/environments.md:723 references/environments.md:1017 references/environments.md:160 references/environments.md:458 references/environments.md:459 references/environments.md:907 references/environments.md:908 references/environments.md:909 references/environments.md:512 references/environments.md:928 references/migration.md:158 references/migration.md:179 references/migration.md:46 references/migration.md:179 references/migration.md:153 references/observation-log.md:744 references/observation-log.md:887 references/observation-log.md:949 references/observation-log.md:971 references/observation-log.md:980 references/observation-log.md:1200 references/observation-log.md:385 references/observation-log.md:965 references/observation-log.md:970 references/observation-log.md:971 references/observation-log.md:1200 references/skill-authoring.md:739 references/skill-authoring.md:739

🔑 Variables d’environnement (6)

.github/workflows/release-bundle.yml:26 references/skill-authoring.md:1277 references/weekly-review.md:487 references/weekly-review.md:500 references/weekly-review.md:501 scripts/migrate-log.py:365

⚙️ Commandes externes (50)

Audité par: codex

Partager et citer ce rapport

Partagez le rapport d’évaluation versionné, le badge neutre, la carte intégrable et les citations. Skillstore présente les preuves sans décider si ce Skill est sûr.

Ouvrir le rapport versionné

Copier le lien du rapport

https://skillstore.io/skills/rebelytics-task-observer/audits/1?utm_source=security_passport&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=versioned_report

Badge Markdown

[![Skillstore security assessment](https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/rebelytics-task-observer/security.svg)](https://skillstore.io/skills/rebelytics-task-observer?utm_source=security_passport_badge)

Badge HTML

<a href="https://skillstore.io/skills/rebelytics-task-observer?utm_source=security_passport_badge"><img src="https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/rebelytics-task-observer/security.svg" alt="Skillstore security assessment" loading="lazy"></a>

Carte intégrable

<iframe src="https://skillstore.io/embed/skills/rebelytics-task-observer.html" title="Skillstore Security Assessment" sandbox="allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox" loading="lazy" referrerpolicy="no-referrer" width="420" height="180"></iframe>

Citations académiques (APA · BibTeX · CFF)

Citation APA

rebelytics. (2026). task-observer security audit report (audit version 1) [Author version 3.5.0]. Skillstore. https://skillstore.io/skills/rebelytics-task-observer/audits/1

Citation BibTeX

@techreport{rebelytics-rebelytics-task-observer-2026,
  author = {rebelytics},
  title = {task-observer security audit report (audit version 1)},
  institution = {Skillstore},
  year = {2026},
  number = {1},
  url = {https://skillstore.io/skills/rebelytics-task-observer/audits/1},
  note = {Author version 3.5.0}
}

CITATION.cff

cff-version: 1.2.0
message: "If you use this Skill, cite its author and this versioned security audit report."
title: "task-observer security audit report (audit version 1)"
version: "3.5.0"
type: report
authors:
  - name: "rebelytics"
date-released: "2026-10-04"
url: "https://skillstore.io/skills/rebelytics-task-observer/audits/1"
identifiers:
  - type: other
    value: "skillstore:rebelytics-task-observer:audit:1"
    description: "Skillstore immutable audit report identifier"

Score Skillstore

Pourquoi ce score Niveau de confiance des preuves: Faible

Architecture

Maintenabilité

Contenu

Communauté

Conformité aux spécifications

Ce que vous pouvez créer

Preserve Coding Workflow Corrections

Record recurring implementation mistakes and user corrections, then prepare focused updates to development skills.

Review Shared Skill Quality

Cluster team observations, check related skills, and stage coordinated improvements for human review.

Retain Research Methods

Capture reusable research steps and verification lessons while separating confidential project details from shared principles.

Essayez ces prompts

Capture One Lesson

Record the reusable lesson from my latest correction as an observation. Explain the issue, suggested improvement, and general principle.

Check for Repeated Findings

Check existing observations for this workflow problem. Extend a matching entry instead of creating a duplicate, and report the affected skills.

Review a Bounded Backlog

Review the ten oldest open observations. Group related findings, check sibling skills, and stage proposed changes for my review.

Plan a Legacy Migration

Inspect my legacy observation log in check-only mode. Report parsing issues and target-format gaps before requesting approval for conversion.

Bonnes pratiques

Use one stable workspace for each observed skill scope and verify the log path before writing.
Capture specific evidence promptly, check duplicates, and record which related skills were considered.
Respect permission denials, remove confidential details from shared principles, and review staged changes before installation.

Éviter

Treating a permission denial as permission to retry the same action through another tool.
Logging every isolated correction without checking whether it generalizes or repeats an existing finding.
Editing installed skills directly or marking observations resolved before checking their full content.

Foire aux questions

Which assistants does Task Observer support?

The report lists Claude, Codex, and Claude Code. Activation and available tools depend on the host environment.

Where are observations stored?

Each observation is a Markdown file in the configured persistent workspace. Resolved entries move into its archive directory.

Does it run automatically?

Reliable automatic activation requires explicit instructions or supported harness hooks. Description matching alone does not guarantee activation.

Does it change my installed skills?

The documented workflow stages proposed updates for review and installation. It does not treat staging as permission to replace installed skills.

Does it require network access?

Routine observation capture is local. Requested upstream feedback and public repository review workflows can require network access.

What security concerns did the audit identify?

The audit found denied-write retry instructions and release tag shell injection. The omitted static matches also require manual review before automatic publication.