BD security-audit-methodology
Plan authorized security reviews with threat modeling, architecture and dependency audits, and vulnerability classification. Use for scoped defensive security assessment. Do not use for offensive operations, unauthorized testing, or security control implementation.
Plan authorized security reviews with threat modeling, architecture and dependency audits, and vulnerability classification.
As a process D 42/100 · Unfinished process — weak spots: steps, result and completion, inputs and preconditions
How to improve
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 4
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 4
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/security-architecture-dependency-audit.md:242Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- [ ] No vertical privilege escalation through modified authentication claims.
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/security-architecture-dependency-audit.md:260Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- [ ] Session IDs are single-use (reissued on login, privilege escalation).
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/threat-modeling.md:11Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (detector / deny-list definition)| **R**epudiation | Can an actor deny an action they performed? | No audit trail on privilege escalation |
detector -
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/vulnerability-classification.md:34Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| CWE-863 (Authorization) | Missing access checks, IDOR, privilege escalation |
Files scanned: 6. 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 42/100
- 0Steps. Prose only: no discrete steps
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 785 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- medium 5 test cases, all positive: not one "should refuse" or "should ask first"
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
- +3No numbered steps or checklist
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +4No input/output examples
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 265: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 6 headings
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (3 of 4)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 86.