BC red-team-tactics
Red team tactics principles based on MITRE ATT&CK. Attack phases, detection evasion, reporting.
Red team tactics principles based on MITRE ATT&CK.
As a process C 50/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
The same skill appears in 1 more place: RA-Skills
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-securitySKILL.md:3Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)description: Red team tactics principles based on MITRE ATT&CK. Attack phases, detection evasion, reporting.
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:7Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Red Team Tactics
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:22Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)LATERAL MOVEMENT → COLLECTION → C2 → EXFILTRATION → IMPACT
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:33Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| **Privilege Escalation** | Get admin/root |
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:37Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| **Lateral Movement** | Spread to other systems |
Files scanned: 1. 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 50/100
- 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
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 85Steps. 22 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1049 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- low 10 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
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 95: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Structure: 27 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 22 items
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 69.