BC nist-800-61
Knowledge base from NIST SP 800-61 Rev. 3 (Incident Response Recommendations for Cybersecurity Risk Management). Use for CSF 2.0-aligned incident response life cycles, IR roles, Community Profile priorities for DE/RS/RC and preparation, playbooks, coordination, and continuous improvement. Covers 800-61r3 only; does not replace CSF 2.0 full text, SP 800-61r2 tactical playbooks, or sector-specific breach-notification law.
Knowledge base from NIST SP 800-61 Rev.
As a process C 58/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, failures and branches
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 · 2
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 2
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitychapters/ch03-roles-policies-and-playbooks.md:34Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- **Unexercised procedures**: Documents that fail on first use during authentication outages or ransomware.
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitychapters/ch03-roles-policies-and-playbooks.md:35Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (detector / deny-list definition)- **Multiple IR teams without federation**: Inconsistent severity scoring and missed lateral movement.
detector
Files scanned: 12. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 49, 67): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 58/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 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. 3 mutating operations with no state check
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 31 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1455 tokens
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
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 423: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 14 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 31 items
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 81.