AB manage-firewall
Inspects and configures the web application firewall (WAF) in front of a Power Pages production site. Lists the current state, recommends enabling protection when it is off, and walks the user through adding, updating, or removing custom rules — IP blocks, country blocks, path blocks, and rate limits. Use when the user wants to turn on WAF, block traffic by IP or country, rate-limit login or signup pages, protect pages from brute-force attempts, restrict access to specific paths, review the current firewall configuration, or asks "is my site protected against bots / common web attacks?" — even if they say "add rate limit" or "protect login page" without mentioning "firewall" or "WAF".
Inspects and configures the web application firewall (WAF) in front of a Power Pages production site.
As a process B 79/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion
What is at stake
Medium-severity findings: the skill is probably honest, but read what alarmed the scanner.
Below is the worst case for this category. The finding here is medium: the guard saw a sign, not a proof.
The skill asks for more than the task needs: broad tool access, credential environment variables, binaries. Every extra permission widens the damage from a mistake or a compromise.
Narrow allowed-tools and the variable list to the minimum; replace binaries with readable sources or scripts.
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 · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
medium Broad scope
meta-broad-allowed-toolsSKILL.md:1Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bashallowed-tools: Read Write Bash Glob Grep AskUserQuestion TaskCreate TaskUpdate TaskList
Files scanned: 10. 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 79/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 4219 tokens
- 85Steps. 61 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
- 100Failures and branches. 6 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 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 10 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (7 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
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 4 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 693: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 25 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 61 items
- +4Has examples (8 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)
- +3All 7 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 96.