SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AC security-review

Review code changes for security vulnerabilities. Checks for OWASP Top 10, secrets exposure, injection flaws, auth issues, and insecure defaults. Use when reviewing PRs, commits, or code diffs.

ClawHub Agent Skills author: Solomon Neas v1.0.0 MIT-0 2 files body ≈ 406 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai↗ analyzed 3 d ago

As a process C 60/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: when it triggers, inputs and preconditions, consistency

AnalyzerSoftware developmentSecurityInfrastructuretype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: OpenClaw Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
94/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
99
Quality 40%
86
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
60/100
Has gaps
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
When it triggers w 12
20
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

    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 · 1

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Medium and low: 1
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security SKILL.md:34
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      - Privilege escalation paths

    Files scanned: 2. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "triggers"

    Process rating: all ten parameters 60/100

    • 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
    • 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (security-review) differs from the folder (sn-security-review)
    • 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Steps. 26 steps
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 406 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)
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 193: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 9 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 26 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (1 code blocks)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 86.

    External checks

    ClawHub: clean
    This is a straightforward security code review prompt with no executable code, persistence, credential handling, or hidden behavior evident in the artifacts.
    LLM: benign (high) · VirusTotal: · 29 May 2026