[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6X6E6KHSRVG2RX6SWJX45RW":3,"skill-same:01M6X6E6KHSRVG2RX6SWJX45RW":89},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":28,"publishedAt":48,"linkOnly":49,"markdownContent":50,"markdownBody":51,"frontMatter":52,"refName":61,"commitSha":62,"skillDirectory":63,"forksCount":64,"repositoryHtmlUrl":65,"repositoryHomepageUrl":66,"ownerHtmlUrl":67,"ownerBlogUrl":66,"ownerDescription":68,"updatedAt":69,"install":70,"resources":82},"01M6X6E6KHSRVG2RX6SWJX45RW","contract-review",null,"Use when reviewing a contract clause-by-clause from your party's side — buyer\u002Fseller\u002Fvendor\u002Flicensee. Triggers on 'review this contract', 'redline this MSA', 'is this clause a problem'.","event4u-app\u002Fagent-config","event4u-app","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F199339632?v=4","01M6X5TWBNCQCE1VDKT4E9KF7N","event4u.app","01M6X5TWF4HRM266RG2Q5VVH1X",19,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fevent4u-app\u002Fagent-config\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fsrc\u002Fskills\u002Fcontract-review\u002FSKILL.md",[18,23],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000037","律师与法务","PROFESSION","适用职业",[29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47],"contract review","review","contract","advisory","senior","when","party","prep","true","problem","triggers","deep","active","legal","use","msa","redline","vendor","process","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nmodel_tier: inherit\nname: contract-review\ndescription: \"Use when reviewing a contract clause-by-clause from your party's side — buyer\u002Fseller\u002Fvendor\u002Flicensee. Triggers on 'review this contract', 'redline this MSA', 'is this clause a problem'.\"\nstatus: active\ntier: senior\ncouncil_depth: deep\ndomain: process\nrecommended_for_user_types: [legal]\nworkspaces:\n  - legal-review-prep\npacks:\n  - legal-review-prep\ntrust:\n  level: advisory\ninstall:\n  removable: true\n---\n\n# contract-review\n\n## When to use\n\n- A contract draft (MSA \u002F SOW \u002F vendor \u002F licence \u002F partner agreement) needs a **position-aware, clause-by-clause** review — the user states their party role and the review adjusts to what *their* side should fear.\n- An existing contract is being negotiated and each load-bearing clause needs a GREEN \u002F YELLOW \u002F RED severity call plus a specific redline *suggestion* (not an edit).\n- A non-lawyer needs the analysis that prepares the attorney conversation: what each clause binds, where the risk concentrates, what to ask for.\n\nDo NOT use to **issue a legal opinion** (the licensed attorney decides — see `legal-safety-floor`), for the non-lawyer cognition layer that precedes a structured review (route to [`contracts-cognition`](..\u002Fcontracts-cognition\u002FSKILL.md)), or for DPA \u002F data-processing review (route to [`dpa-review`](..\u002Fdpa-review\u002FSKILL.md)).\n\n## Procedure\n\n### Step 0: Fix the party role and the jurisdiction\n\n1. The user states their **party role**: `buyer` \u002F `seller` \u002F `vendor` \u002F `licensee` \u002F `licensor` (or the contract's own term). The review is asymmetric — a cap that protects the seller exposes the buyer. If the role is missing, STOP and ask once. Do not infer from prose.\n2. Read the governing-law clause. If the contract is governed by a jurisdiction **outside EU\u002FDE scope**, REFUSE the review: *\"This is governed by <jurisdiction> — outside this pack's EU\u002FDE scope. Consult licensed local counsel.\"* Never a stale guess for an out-of-scope jurisdiction.\n3. Tag the output with `Jurisdiction: EU` or `Jurisdiction: DE` — the one you reasoned under.\n\n### Step 1: Establish the position profile\n\nRead thresholds and acceptable positions from the `legal-practice-profile` (sibling skill). The skill ships **no default legal positions** — caps, notice windows, indemnity shapes, and acceptable-risk bands are the profile's, not the agent's.\n\nUntil the profile is configured, emit explicit `[configure]` placeholders (e.g. *\"indemnity cap acceptable band: [configure]\"*) and say plainly that no position is being asserted.\n\n### Step 2: Map clauses to the risk taxonomy\n\nWalk the contract clause by clause. Classify each against a public clause-risk reference (a CUAD-style 41-category taxonomy — named as a reference; **no dataset is vendored**): liability\u002Findemnity, term\u002Frenewal\u002Ftermination, IP\u002Flicence grant, confidentiality, data, governing law, audit, exclusivity\u002FMFN, change-of-control, payment, warranty, assignment, and the rest.\n\nFor each clause, read it **from the user's party role**: *\"under what scenario does this fire, and who pays when it does?\"*\n\n### Step 3: Assign GREEN \u002F YELLOW \u002F RED per clause\n\n- **GREEN** — standard, symmetric, within (or absent-of) the profile band. A triage signal, not a clearance.\n- **YELLOW** — acceptable only with a named change, or carries role-specific risk worth surfacing.\n- **RED** — unbounded, one-way against the user's role, or contradicts a `[configure]`\u002Fprofile band. Leads the redline list.\n\n### Step 4: Produce redline SUGGESTIONS (never edits)\n\nFor each YELLOW\u002FRED clause, write a specific *suggested* ask — the cap to add, the carve-out to remove, the notice window to extend — phrased as a proposal for counsel and the negotiation lead, **not** an applied edit to the document.\n\n### Step 5: Surface the open questions, refuse the final call\n\nList what the licensed attorney must decide (which clauses are counsel-led vs commercial) and the open questions the review could not resolve. Do **not** issue a sign \u002F don't-sign verdict.\n\n### Step 6: Emit the review artifacts\n\nProduce `review-frame.md` and `redline-suggestions.md` (see Output). Every artifact carries the `Jurisdiction:` tag and the work-product line below.\n\nTag every cited authority (statute, article, case, guidance) per [`legal-practice-profile`](..\u002Flegal-practice-profile\u002FSKILL.md) § Source-tag + currency vocabulary — a cite with no current source is `[model knowledge — verify]`, never stated as settled.\n\n> ⚠️ Attorney review required on material use. This is a draft for a licensed attorney, not legal advice and not a legal conclusion.\n\n## Related Skills\n\n**WHEN to use this**\n\n- Position-aware clause-by-clause review of a contract within EU\u002FDE scope.\n- The user knows their party role and wants per-clause severity + redline suggestions.\n\n**WHEN NOT to use this**\n\n- Mutual \u002F one-way NDA quick read — route to [`nda-triage`](..\u002Fnda-triage\u002FSKILL.md).\n- DPA \u002F Art. 28 \u002F data-processing review — route to [`dpa-review`](..\u002Fdpa-review\u002FSKILL.md).\n- \"Is this even a legal problem \u002F what is this document\" — route to [`legal-intake-triage`](..\u002Flegal-intake-triage\u002FSKILL.md).\n- Non-lawyer cognition that precedes a structured review — route to [`contracts-cognition`](..\u002Fcontracts-cognition\u002FSKILL.md).\n\nObeys `legal-safety-floor` (rule): no final legal call, mandatory work-product line, EU\u002FDE-only hard refusal, machine-checkable `Jurisdiction:` tag.\n\n## When the agent should load this\n\n- \"Review this contract from the buyer's side.\"\n- \"Redline this MSA — we're the vendor.\"\n- \"Is this indemnity clause a problem for us?\"\n- \"Prüf diesen Vertrag aus unserer Sicht durch.\"\n- \"Worauf müssen wir als Lizenznehmer achten?\"\n\n## Output\n\n1. **`review-frame.md`** — party role, `Jurisdiction:` tag, position profile read (or `[configure]` placeholders), per-clause table with GREEN\u002FYELLOW\u002FRED severity + risk-taxonomy category + the firing scenario from the user's side. Carries the work-product line.\n2. **`redline-suggestions.md`** — per YELLOW\u002FRED clause, the specific suggested ask (cap \u002F carve-out \u002F notice window), phrased as a proposal for counsel — never an applied edit; plus the open questions and counsel-led vs commercial-led split. Carries the work-product line.\n\n## Gotcha\n\n- The review is **asymmetric**: a GREEN for the seller can be a RED for the buyer. Re-run severity against the stated party role, never against \"the contract\" in the abstract.\n- Severity is a triage signal, never a clearance — a GREEN clause is not a sign-off, and the agent never issues the sign \u002F don't-sign call.\n- The skill ships **no default positions**. A severity asserted without a profile band or a `[configure]` placeholder is a fabricated legal position — surface the gap, don't fill it.\n- Out-of-scope governing law is a hard refusal, not a best-effort guess — a stale read of a jurisdiction the pack doesn't cover is worse than no read.\n- Suggested redlines are proposals, not edits. Applying changes to the document silently strips the attorney's review gate.\n\n## Do NOT\n\n- Do NOT issue a final legal call (sign \u002F don't-sign \u002F safe \u002F unsafe) — surface analysis + open questions; the licensed attorney decides.\n- Do NOT invent thresholds or acceptable positions — read them from `legal-practice-profile` or emit `[configure]`.\n- Do NOT review a contract governed by an out-of-scope jurisdiction — refuse and route to licensed local counsel.\n- Do NOT emit any artifact without the `Jurisdiction:` tag and the verbatim attorney work-product line in the body.\n- Do NOT apply redlines as edits — emit them as suggestions only.\n\n## Runnable example\n\nVendor-side review of a customer-drafted MSA, governed by German law.\n\n- Step 0 — party role = `vendor`; governing law = Germany → in scope. `Jurisdiction: DE`.\n- Step 1 — `legal-practice-profile` not yet configured → indemnity-cap band, notice-window floor, and acceptable-liability shape all emitted as `[configure]`; output states no position is asserted.\n- Step 2 — clauses mapped: uncapped IP indemnity (liability\u002Findemnity), 3-year auto-renewal \u002F 90-day notice (term\u002Frenewal), MFN buried in pricing schedule (exclusivity\u002FMFN), unilateral audit right (audit).\n- Step 3 — severity from vendor's side: uncapped IP indemnity → **RED**; auto-renewal + short notice → **YELLOW**; MFN → **RED** (forecloses portfolio pricing); audit right → YELLOW.\n- Step 4 — redline suggestions: cap IP indemnity at `[configure]`× ACV with carve-outs; extend notice to `[configure]` days, reduce renewal to 1 year; strike MFN or limit to identical SKU; bound audit frequency + notice.\n- Step 5 — open questions: is the IP-indemnity carve-out scope counsel-led (yes); auto-renewal window is commercial-led. No sign \u002F don't-sign verdict.\n- Step 6 — emit `review-frame.md` + `redline-suggestions.md`, each tagged `Jurisdiction: DE` and carrying the attorney work-product line.\n","# contract-review\n\n## When to use\n\n- A contract draft (MSA \u002F SOW \u002F vendor \u002F licence \u002F partner agreement) needs a **position-aware, clause-by-clause** review — the user states their party role and the review adjusts to what *their* side should fear.\n- An existing contract is being negotiated and each load-bearing clause needs a GREEN \u002F YELLOW \u002F RED severity call plus a specific redline *suggestion* (not an edit).\n- A non-lawyer needs the analysis that prepares the attorney conversation: what each clause binds, where the risk concentrates, what to ask for.\n\nDo NOT use to **issue a legal opinion** (the licensed attorney decides — see `legal-safety-floor`), for the non-lawyer cognition layer that precedes a structured review (route to [`contracts-cognition`](..\u002Fcontracts-cognition\u002FSKILL.md)), or for DPA \u002F data-processing review (route to [`dpa-review`](..\u002Fdpa-review\u002FSKILL.md)).\n\n## Procedure\n\n### Step 0: Fix the party role and the jurisdiction\n\n1. The user states their **party role**: `buyer` \u002F `seller` \u002F `vendor` \u002F `licensee` \u002F `licensor` (or the contract's own term). The review is asymmetric — a cap that protects the seller exposes the buyer. If the role is missing, STOP and ask once. Do not infer from prose.\n2. Read the governing-law clause. If the contract is governed by a jurisdiction **outside EU\u002FDE scope**, REFUSE the review: *\"This is governed by <jurisdiction> — outside this pack's EU\u002FDE scope. Consult licensed local counsel.\"* Never a stale guess for an out-of-scope jurisdiction.\n3. Tag the output with `Jurisdiction: EU` or `Jurisdiction: DE` — the one you reasoned under.\n\n### Step 1: Establish the position profile\n\nRead thresholds and acceptable positions from the `legal-practice-profile` (sibling skill). The skill ships **no default legal positions** — caps, notice windows, indemnity shapes, and acceptable-risk bands are the profile's, not the agent's.\n\nUntil the profile is configured, emit explicit `[configure]` placeholders (e.g. *\"indemnity cap acceptable band: [configure]\"*) and say plainly that no position is being asserted.\n\n### Step 2: Map clauses to the risk taxonomy\n\nWalk the contract clause by clause. Classify each against a public clause-risk reference (a CUAD-style 41-category taxonomy — named as a reference; **no dataset is vendored**): liability\u002Findemnity, term\u002Frenewal\u002Ftermination, IP\u002Flicence grant, confidentiality, data, governing law, audit, exclusivity\u002FMFN, change-of-control, payment, warranty, assignment, and the rest.\n\nFor each clause, read it **from the user's party role**: *\"under what scenario does this fire, and who pays when it does?\"*\n\n### Step 3: Assign GREEN \u002F YELLOW \u002F RED per clause\n\n- **GREEN** — standard, symmetric, within (or absent-of) the profile band. A triage signal, not a clearance.\n- **YELLOW** — acceptable only with a named change, or carries role-specific risk worth surfacing.\n- **RED** — unbounded, one-way against the user's role, or contradicts a `[configure]`\u002Fprofile band. Leads the redline list.\n\n### Step 4: Produce redline SUGGESTIONS (never edits)\n\nFor each YELLOW\u002FRED clause, write a specific *suggested* ask — the cap to add, the carve-out to remove, the notice window to extend — phrased as a proposal for counsel and the negotiation lead, **not** an applied edit to the document.\n\n### Step 5: Surface the open questions, refuse the final call\n\nList what the licensed attorney must decide (which clauses are counsel-led vs commercial) and the open questions the review could not resolve. Do **not** issue a sign \u002F don't-sign verdict.\n\n### Step 6: Emit the review artifacts\n\nProduce `review-frame.md` and `redline-suggestions.md` (see Output). Every artifact carries the `Jurisdiction:` tag and the work-product line below.\n\nTag every cited authority (statute, article, case, guidance) per [`legal-practice-profile`](..\u002Flegal-practice-profile\u002FSKILL.md) § Source-tag + currency vocabulary — a cite with no current source is `[model knowledge — verify]`, never stated as settled.\n\n> ⚠️ Attorney review required on material use. This is a draft for a licensed attorney, not legal advice and not a legal conclusion.\n\n## Related Skills\n\n**WHEN to use this**\n\n- Position-aware clause-by-clause review of a contract within EU\u002FDE scope.\n- The user knows their party role and wants per-clause severity + redline suggestions.\n\n**WHEN NOT to use this**\n\n- Mutual \u002F one-way NDA quick read — route to [`nda-triage`](..\u002Fnda-triage\u002FSKILL.md).\n- DPA \u002F Art. 28 \u002F data-processing review — route to [`dpa-review`](..\u002Fdpa-review\u002FSKILL.md).\n- \"Is this even a legal problem \u002F what is this document\" — route to [`legal-intake-triage`](..\u002Flegal-intake-triage\u002FSKILL.md).\n- Non-lawyer cognition that precedes a structured review — route to [`contracts-cognition`](..\u002Fcontracts-cognition\u002FSKILL.md).\n\nObeys `legal-safety-floor` (rule): no final legal call, mandatory work-product line, EU\u002FDE-only hard refusal, machine-checkable `Jurisdiction:` tag.\n\n## When the agent should load this\n\n- \"Review this contract from the buyer's side.\"\n- \"Redline this MSA — we're the vendor.\"\n- \"Is this indemnity clause a problem for us?\"\n- \"Prüf diesen Vertrag aus unserer Sicht durch.\"\n- \"Worauf müssen wir als Lizenznehmer achten?\"\n\n## Output\n\n1. **`review-frame.md`** — party role, `Jurisdiction:` tag, position profile read (or `[configure]` placeholders), per-clause table with GREEN\u002FYELLOW\u002FRED severity + risk-taxonomy category + the firing scenario from the user's side. Carries the work-product line.\n2. **`redline-suggestions.md`** — per YELLOW\u002FRED clause, the specific suggested ask (cap \u002F carve-out \u002F notice window), phrased as a proposal for counsel — never an applied edit; plus the open questions and counsel-led vs commercial-led split. Carries the work-product line.\n\n## Gotcha\n\n- The review is **asymmetric**: a GREEN for the seller can be a RED for the buyer. Re-run severity against the stated party role, never against \"the contract\" in the abstract.\n- Severity is a triage signal, never a clearance — a GREEN clause is not a sign-off, and the agent never issues the sign \u002F don't-sign call.\n- The skill ships **no default positions**. A severity asserted without a profile band or a `[configure]` placeholder is a fabricated legal position — surface the gap, don't fill it.\n- Out-of-scope governing law is a hard refusal, not a best-effort guess — a stale read of a jurisdiction the pack doesn't cover is worse than no read.\n- Suggested redlines are proposals, not edits. Applying changes to the document silently strips the attorney's review gate.\n\n## Do NOT\n\n- Do NOT issue a final legal call (sign \u002F don't-sign \u002F safe \u002F unsafe) — surface analysis + open questions; the licensed attorney decides.\n- Do NOT invent thresholds or acceptable positions — read them from `legal-practice-profile` or emit `[configure]`.\n- Do NOT review a contract governed by an out-of-scope jurisdiction — refuse and route to licensed local counsel.\n- Do NOT emit any artifact without the `Jurisdiction:` tag and the verbatim attorney work-product line in the body.\n- Do NOT apply redlines as edits — emit them as suggestions only.\n\n## Runnable example\n\nVendor-side review of a customer-drafted MSA, governed by German law.\n\n- Step 0 — party role = `vendor`; governing law = Germany → in scope. `Jurisdiction: DE`.\n- Step 1 — `legal-practice-profile` not yet configured → indemnity-cap band, notice-window floor, and acceptable-liability shape all emitted as `[configure]`; output states no position is asserted.\n- Step 2 — clauses mapped: uncapped IP indemnity (liability\u002Findemnity), 3-year auto-renewal \u002F 90-day notice (term\u002Frenewal), MFN buried in pricing schedule (exclusivity\u002FMFN), unilateral audit right (audit).\n- Step 3 — severity from vendor's side: uncapped IP indemnity → **RED**; auto-renewal + short notice → **YELLOW**; MFN → **RED** (forecloses portfolio pricing); audit right → YELLOW.\n- Step 4 — redline suggestions: cap IP indemnity at `[configure]`× ACV with carve-outs; extend notice to `[configure]` days, reduce renewal to 1 year; strike MFN or limit to identical SKU; bound audit frequency + notice.\n- Step 5 — open questions: is the IP-indemnity carve-out scope counsel-led (yes); auto-renewal window is commercial-led. No sign \u002F don't-sign verdict.\n- Step 6 — emit `review-frame.md` + `redline-suggestions.md`, each tagged `Jurisdiction: DE` and carrying the attorney work-product line.\n",{"name":5,"tier":33,"packs":53,"trust":55,"domain":47,"status":41,"install":56,"model_tier":58,"workspaces":59,"description":7,"council_depth":40,"recommended_for_user_types":60},[54],"legal-review-prep",{"level":32},{"removable":57},true,"inherit",[54],[42],"main","12bd765ce1d800501d45dfb8232102793af01290","src\u002Fskills\u002Fcontract-review",1,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fevent4u-app\u002Fagent-config","https:\u002F\u002Fevent4u.app","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fevent4u-app","Your events in your hand","2026-11-11 22:25:41",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":71,"prompt":81,"zipAvailable":57},[72,75,78],{"tool":73,"command":74},"npx","npx skills add event4u-app\u002Fagent-config --skill contract-review",{"tool":76,"command":77},"bunx","bunx skills add event4u-app\u002Fagent-config --skill contract-review",{"tool":79,"command":80},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add event4u-app\u002Fagent-config --skill contract-review","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fevent4u-app\u002Fagent-config\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fsrc\u002Fskills\u002Fcontract-review\u002FSKILL.md",[83],{"path":84,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":87,"sourceHtmlUrl":88},"evals\u002Ftriggers.json","REFERENCE","参考文档",1393,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fevent4u-app\u002Fagent-config\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fsrc\u002Fskills\u002Fcontract-review\u002Fevals\u002Ftriggers.json",[90,104,117,129,141,151],{"skillNo":91,"name":92,"nameZh":6,"description":93,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":94,"categories":95,"keywords":97,"publishedAt":48},"01M6X84PK96XBPENXH66JCTSD1","unknown-key-fixture","Declares a key the schema does not know.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fevent4u-app\u002Fagent-config\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftests\u002Fscripts\u002Ffixtures\u002Fbody-portable\u002Funknown-key\u002FSKILL.md",[96],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[98,99,100,101,102,103],"unknown key fixture","Unknown key","fixture","unknown","schema","package",{"skillNo":105,"name":106,"nameZh":6,"description":107,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":108,"categories":109,"keywords":111,"publishedAt":48},"01M6X84HW7NAHZ7GZMQ9RXK1XJ","portable-fixture","Declares only semantics the MCP-lite carrier transports whole.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fevent4u-app\u002Fagent-config\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftests\u002Fscripts\u002Ffixtures\u002Fbody-portable\u002Fportable\u002FSKILL.md",[110],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[100,112,113,114,115,103,116],"portable","portable fixture","engineer","only","MCP",{"skillNo":118,"name":119,"nameZh":6,"description":120,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":121,"categories":122,"keywords":124,"publishedAt":48},"01M6X84F29FE0RGGZ1ZTFGZTX2","non-portable-fixture","Declares a runtime semantic the carrier drops.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fevent4u-app\u002Fagent-config\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftests\u002Fscripts\u002Ffixtures\u002Fbody-portable\u002Fnon-portable\u002FSKILL.md",[123],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[113,125,112,100,126,127,128,103],"non portable fixture","semantic","high","runtime",{"skillNo":130,"name":131,"nameZh":6,"description":132,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":133,"categories":134,"keywords":136,"publishedAt":48},"01M6X848F706PT9MDCX75JKJ6B","candidate-zero-width","A candidate whose prose carries an invisible joiner.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fevent4u-app\u002Fagent-config\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftests\u002Ffixtures\u002Fskill-scout-candidates\u002Fzero-width-injection\u002FSKILL.md",[135],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[137,138,139,140],"candidate zero width","candidate","ZeRO","prose",{"skillNo":142,"name":143,"nameZh":6,"description":144,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":145,"categories":146,"keywords":148,"publishedAt":48},"01M6X841SSC2T31VDF41SA6DG1","candidate-disclosure-suppression","A candidate whose prose tells the agent to withhold from the user.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fevent4u-app\u002Fagent-config\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftests\u002Ffixtures\u002Fskill-scout-candidates\u002Fdisclosure-suppression\u002FSKILL.md",[147],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[149,138,140,150],"candidate disclosure suppression","user",{"skillNo":152,"name":153,"nameZh":6,"description":154,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":155,"categories":156,"keywords":158,"publishedAt":48},"01M6X83TFS5AGPBPVTQNWP0BB3","candidate-dangerous-frontmatter","A candidate claiming an unscoped tool grant and a permission bypass.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fevent4u-app\u002Fagent-config\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftests\u002Ffixtures\u002Fskill-scout-candidates\u002Fdangerous-frontmatter\u002FSKILL.md",[157],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[159,138,160,161,162,163],"candidate dangerous frontmatter","frontmatter","shell","permission","tool"]