CD azure-defender-for-cloud
Expert knowledge for Azure Defender For Cloud development including troubleshooting, best practices, decision making, architecture & design patterns, limits & quotas, security, configuration, integrations & coding patterns, and deployment. Use when managing secure score, multicloud connectors, agentless scans, container/SQL protection, or alert exports, and other Azure Defender For Cloud related development tasks. Not for Azure Security (use azure-security), Azure Sentinel (use azure-sentinel), Azure DDoS Protection (use azure-ddos-protection), Azure External Attack Surface Management (use azure-external-attack-surface-management).
Expert knowledge for Azure Defender For Cloud development including troubleshooting, best practices, decision making, architecture & design patterns, limits &…
As a process D 40/100 · Unfinished process — References files that are not bundled: security.md
How to improve
- The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
- 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
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:175Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| Analyze Kubernetes lateral movement with Defender for Cloud | https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/defender-for-cloud/episode-sixty-one |
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 11226 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: security.md - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 58, 190, 300): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 40/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: security.md
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 30Running it twice. 39 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Execution cost. Instruction body is 11226 tokens: crowds the task out of the window
- 50Steps. 2 steps
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- 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
- +3No numbered steps or checklist
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +4No input/output examples
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 639: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 12 headings
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 65.