BC pentest-active-directory
Assess Active Directory identity attack paths including roasting, relay, and delegation abuse.
Assess Active Directory identity attack paths including roasting, relay, and delegation abuse.
As a process C 53/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
How to improve
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
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-securityreferences/tools.md:1Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Pentest Active Directory Tools
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:2Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)name: pentest-active-directory
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:6Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Pentest Active Directory
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:15Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)Map and validate AD privilege escalation and movement paths.
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:28Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)python skills/pentest-active-directory/scripts/active_directory.py --scope scope.json --target <target> --input <path> --output <path> --format json --dry-run
Files scanned: 4. 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 53/100
- 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
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 13 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 306 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
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)
- +3Description length 94: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Structure: 8 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 13 items
- +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)
- +3All 1 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 76.