BC security-review
Review code for security vulnerabilities. Use when the user says 'security review', 'security audit', 'check for vulnerabilities', 'pentest the code', 'OWASP check', or any variation of wanting a security assessment.
Review code for security vulnerabilities.
As a process C 64/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, running it twice
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.md:3Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)description: "Review code for security vulnerabilities. Use when the user says 'security review', 'security audit', 'check for vulnerabilities', 'pentest the code', 'OWASP check', or any variation of
quoted -
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:41Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- **Privilege escalation**: Actions that should be restricted (delete, move, admin operations) but aren't gated on role/permission.
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:84Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)Exploitable with some preconditions (e.g., needs authenticated user, specific timing). Privilege escalation, significant data leakage.
Files scanned: 1. 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
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 85Steps. 36 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1632 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
- +4No input/output examples
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 216: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 17 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 36 items
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 80.