BD skill-guard
Security scanner that audits OpenClaw skills for malicious code, prompt injection, supply chain attacks, data exfiltration, and more
Security scanner that audits OpenClaw skills for malicious code, prompt injection, supply chain attacks, data exfiltration, and more
As a process D 44/100 · Unfinished process — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, failures and branches
How to improve
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
- 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:123Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| Reverse shell | auto MALICIOUS |
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:143Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| fake-formatter | Base…ded reverse shell |
A further 1 matches are quotations in this security skill's documentation and are not counted as findings.
Files scanned: 3. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-no-whendescription does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when")
Process rating: all ten parameters 44/100
- 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. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (skill-guard) differs from the folder (benlee-skillguard)
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web, python) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 85Steps. 42 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1358 tokens
- low The response is described with custom markup (3 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
- +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
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 132: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 22 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 42 items
- +4Has examples (3 code blocks)
- +3All 1 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 75.