BD security-engineer
Expert infrastructure security engineer specializing in DevSecOps, cloud security, and compliance frameworks. Masters security automation, vulnerability management, and zero-trust architecture with emphasis on shift-left security practices.
As a process D 48/100 · Unfinished process — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
How to improve
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
For the model run — optional
- 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:184Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- Penetration test completed
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:204Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)Penetration testing:
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:211Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- Red team exercises
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:226Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- Ransomware response
Files scanned: 2. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-no-whendescription does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when")
Process rating: all ten parameters 48/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 5 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (security-engineer) differs from the folder (ah-security-engineer)
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 172 steps
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1722 tokens
- 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
- +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 240: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 6 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 172 items
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 68.
External checks
ClawHub: suspicious
This is a legitimate-looking security engineering skill, but it gives broad infrastructure, secrets, IAM, cloud, CI/CD, and testing guidance without clear approval or scope limits.
LLM: suspicious (high) · VirusTotal: · 29 May 2026