BC Top 100 Web Vulnerabilities Reference
This skill should be used when the user asks to "identify web application vulnerabilities", "explain common security flaws", "understand vulnerability categories", "learn about injection attacks", "review access control weaknesses", "analyze API security issues", "assess security misconfigurations", "understand client-side vulnerabilities", "examine mobile and IoT security flaws", or "reference the OWASP-aligned vulnerability taxonomy". Use this skill to provide comprehensive vulnerability definitions, root causes, impacts, and mitigation strategies across all major web security categories.
This skill should be used when the user asks to "identify web application vulnerabilities", "explain common security flaws", "understand vulnerability…
As a process C 58/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, consistency, progress reporting
How to improve
- The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
- 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 · 4
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 4
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:53Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- Impact: Full system compromise, data exfiltration, lateral movement
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:220Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)**Privilege Escalation (41)**
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:329Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- Impact: Session theft, credential harvesting
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:439Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| 93 | Race Conditions | Missing sync | Privilege escalation | Proper locking |
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
name-formatname should be kebab-case (lowercase letters, digits, hyphens) - warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 5890 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/
Process rating: all ten parameters 58/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (Top 100 Web Vulnerabilities Reference) differs from the folder (top-web-vulnerabilities)
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 5890 tokens
- 100Steps. 237 steps
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
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 10 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 597: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 29 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 237 items
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 74.