AC pwnclaw-security-scan
Test your AI agent for security vulnerabilities using PwnClaw. Runs 50+ attacks (prompt injection, jailbreaks, social engineering, MCP poisoning, and more) and provides fix instructions. Use when your agent needs a security check or hardening.
As a process C 57/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
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 · 2
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 2
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityskill-card.md:16Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (detector / deny-list definition)Developers and agent operators use this skill to run security scans against an authorized AI agent and review hardening guidance for issues such as prompt injection, jailbreaks, data exfiltration, MCP
detector -
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:19Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- Privilege Escalation & Obfuscation
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 57/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Failures and branches. 2 branches
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 18 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 462 tokens
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
- +4No input/output examples
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 243: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 9 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 18 items
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 80.