AD security-audit
Run security audits on codebases using static analysis, dependency scanning, and manual code review patterns. Covers OWASP Top 10, secrets detection, dependency vulnerabilities, and infrastructure misconfigurations. Use when asked to scan code for vulnerabilities, perform a security review, audit a project, or check for security issues. Adapted from Trail of Bits methodology.
As a process D 46/100 · Unfinished process — 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 · 3
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 3
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityskill-card.md:25Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)Mitigation: Manually verify findings and use professional penetration testing for higher-assurance security review. <br>
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityskill-card.md:35Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (detector / deny-list definition)**Other Properties Related to Output:** [Static, grep-based checks require manual verification and do not replace professional penetration testing.] <br>
detector -
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:139Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- Does not replace professional penetration testing
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 46/100
- 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
- 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
- 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (security-audit) differs from the folder (s3-security-audit)
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 19 steps
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1239 tokens
- 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
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 378: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 9 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 19 items
- +4Has examples (6 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 84.