AC axguard-cso
Chief Security Officer workflow for AXguard — STRIDE-lite threat model, OWASP-oriented prioritization, confidence-gated findings, then audit/triage/fix/report handoff. Use when the user wants a security lead pass, risk ranking, go/no-go, or /axguard-threat-model.
Chief Security Officer workflow for AXguard — STRIDE-lite threat model, OWASP-oriented prioritization, confidence-gated findings, then audit/triage/fix/report…
As a process C 58/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, failures and branches, running it twice
What is at stake
Medium-severity findings: the skill is probably honest, but read what alarmed the scanner.
Below is the worst case for this category. The finding here is medium: the guard saw a sign, not a proof.
The skill contains commands that delete files, rewrite disks or execute code fetched from the network. The agent may run them without asking if it believes the instructions require it.
Replace destructive commands with safe equivalents that ask for confirmation, scope them to one folder, and stop piping curl into a shell: pin a version and a checksum.
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 · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
medium Dangerous commands
cmd-pipe-to-shellSKILL.md:45Downloads and executes remote code from an unrecognised host (pipe to shell) (documentation of a security skill)7. **A08 Integrity / supply** — curl\|sh, unpinned indexes, install scripts
security skill
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 58/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, 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. 20 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 776 tokens
- low The skill ranks results itself: that belongs to the system behind the tool, not the model
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)
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 263: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 8 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 20 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 87.