SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

BC security-review

AI DevKit · Review code, skills, and prompts for security vulnerabilities — OWASP Top 10, prompt injection, business logic flaws, and insecure defaults. Use when reviewing PRs, auditing modules, reviewing AI skills/prompts, or preparing for release.

codeaholicguy/ai-devkit Agent Skills author: codeaholicguy 3 files body ≈ 1 150 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 5 d ago

AI DevKit · Review code, skills, and prompts for security vulnerabilities — OWASP Top 10, prompt injection, business logic flaws, and insecure defaults.

As a process C 64/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: when it triggers, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches

AnalyzerAI and agentsSecuritytype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: 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) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
B
94/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
99
Quality 40%
87
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
64/100
Has gaps
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Failures and branches w 10
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:31
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      c. **Auth** — missing checks, privilege escalation, OAuth/OIDC, IDOR.

    Files scanned: 3. 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 64/100

    • 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
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Steps. 33 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1150 tokens
    • 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
    • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
    • medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
    • low The response is described with custom markup (3 tags): a typed call is more reliable

    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)
    • +4No input/output examples
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 249: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 5 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 33 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 87.