BC security-reviewer
Identifies security vulnerabilities, generates structured audit reports with severity ratings, and provides actionable remediation guidance. Use when conducting security audits, reviewing code for vulnerabilities, or analyzing infrastructure security. Invoke for SAST scans, penetration testing, DevSecOps practices, cloud security reviews, dependency audits, secrets scanning, or compliance checks. Produces vulnerability reports, prioritized recommendations, and compliance checklists.
Identifies security vulnerabilities, generates structured audit reports with severity ratings, and provides actionable remediation guidance.
As a process C 62/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: when it triggers, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches
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 · 10
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 10
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/penetration-testing.md:1Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (test fixture / example file)# Penetration Testing
fixture -
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/penetration-testing.md:44Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (test fixture / example file)# Privilege escalation
fixture -
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/penetration-testing.md:104Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (test fixture / example file)### Privilege Escalation (Linux)
fixture -
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/penetration-testing.md:121Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (test fixture / example file)### Lateral Movement
fixture -
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/penetration-testing.md:131Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (test fixture / example file)# Credential harvesting
fixture -
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:3Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (detector / deny-list definition)description: Identifies security vulnerabilities, generates structured audit reports with severity ratings, and provides actionable remediation guidance. Use when conducting security audits, reviewing
detector -
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:11Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (detector / deny-list definition)triggers: security review, vulnerability scan, SAST, security audit, penetration test, code audit, security analysis, infrastructure security, DevSecOps, cloud security, compliance audit
detector -
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:20Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)Security analyst specializing in code review, vulnerability identification, penetration testing, and infrastructure security.
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:27Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- Penetration testing and reconnaissance
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:53Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| Penetration Testing | `references/penetration-testing.md` | Active testing, reconnaissance, exploitation |
Files scanned: 7. 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 62/100
- 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
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 38 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 986 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
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)
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 487: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 10 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 38 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (6 of 6)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 92.