SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

CB nist-ssdf

Knowledge base from NIST Secure Software Development Framework (SSDF) v1.1 (SP 800-218). Use for secure software development practices, SDLC security integration, software supply chain security, vulnerability disclosure, SBOM, threat modelling, secure coding, build hardening, EO 14028 compliance. Covers the four SSDF practice groups (PO, PS, PW, RV) only; does not cover NIST CSF, SP 800-53 controls, or cloud-specific security frameworks in depth.

jgsystemsconsulting/jgs-se-knowledge-packs Agent Skills author: jgsystemsconsulting 11 files body ≈ 2 148 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 29 h ago

Knowledge base from NIST Secure Software Development Framework (SSDF) v1.1 (SP 800-218). Use for secure software development practices, SDLC security…

As a process B 68/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, failures and branches, running it twice

ReferenceSecuritytype 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
C
89/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
95
Quality 40%
81
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
68/100
Nearly there
Failures and branches w 10
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
Running it twice w 4
30
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 · 5

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Medium and low: 5
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security chapters/ch02-prepare-the-organization.md:15
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      - **PO.5 — Implement and Maintain Secure Environments for Software Development**: Strongly protect all development environments (development, build, test, distribution) from internal and external thre
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security chapters/ch02-prepare-the-organization.md:27
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      - **Environment Separation (PO.5.1)**: Network-segmented, access-controlled isolation of development, build, staging, test, and distribution environments to reduce attack surface and limit lateral mov
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security chapters/ch04-produce-well-secured-software.md:19
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      - **PW.8 — Test Executable Code to Identify Vulnerabilities**: Scope and perform dynamic testing (functional testing, fuzz testing, penetration testing) on executable code; document results and root c
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security glossary.md:27
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      **Environment Separation** — Network-segmented, access-controlled isolation of development, build, staging, test, and distribution environments to reduce attack surface and limit lateral movement. (Ch
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security SKILL.md:88
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      - **Penetration testing** → ch04 (PW.8.2)

    Files scanned: 11. 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 68/100

    • 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 30Running it twice. 3 mutating operations with no state check
    • 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
    • 85Steps. 58 steps, 1 vague phrases
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2148 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 450: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 10 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 58 items
    • +1License stated

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 81.