BC security-and-hardening
Hardens code against vulnerabilities. Use when auditing an input handler for vulnerabilities, when handling user input, authentication, data storage, or external integrations, or when checking a login flow is safe against the OWASP Top Ten. Use when building any feature that accepts untrusted data, manages user sessions, or interacts with third-party services. Use when auditing dependencies for known vulnerabilities, triaging package-manager audit findings, or assessing supply-chain risk in a new package. Use when personal data or privacy compliance (GDPR, CCPA) is involved.
Hardens code against vulnerabilities.
As a process C 55/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, failures and branches, running it twice
How to improve
- The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
- 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 · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 6796 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/
Process rating: all ten parameters 55/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 30Running it twice. 19 mutating operations with no state check
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 6796 tokens
- 100Steps. 77 steps
- 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
- low 16 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)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -2localhost URLs: will not work for another user
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 581: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 31 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 77 items
- +4Has examples (16 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 72.