AC client-side-pentest
Perform a thorough client-side / browser-facing security assessment of a target web application. Use this skill whenever the user asks to pentest, audit, or review the security of a website or web app from the browser/frontend perspective, mentions client-side vulnerabilities (XSS, CORS, open redirect, clickjacking, prototype pollution, JWT leakage, source maps, etc.), wants to find sensitive data exposed in JavaScript bundles or client code, or asks for a security report on front-end attack surface. Trigger even if the user just says "test the security of this site", "find vulnerabilities in this web app", or "run a pentest on the frontend".
As a process C 55/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, failures and branches, consistency
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 · 4
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 4
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:2Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)name: client-side-pentest
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:5Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)Use this skill whenever the user asks to pentest, audit, or review the security of a website or
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:10Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)"find vulnerabilities in this web app", or "run a pentest on the frontend".
quoted -
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:216Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Client-Side Penetration Test Report
Files scanned: 2. 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 55/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (client-side-pentest) differs from the folder (web-front-scanner)
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (web) that frontmatter does not declare
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Steps. 89 steps
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1997 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- low 10 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
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 3 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 650: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 16 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 89 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (4 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 92.