AB red-team-my-plan
Attack your own plan the way a smart adversary would — find the weakest point, the thing you're hoping nobody notices, and where it breaks under pressure. Use when asked to red-team this, attack my plan, find the holes, or where does this break. Produces an adversarial breakdown of the plan's weakest points, the single move an opponent (or reality) would make to break it, the part you're quietly hoping holds, and the fixes that close the biggest gaps — a hostile stress-test done by your own side, before someone else does it for real.
Attack your own plan the way a smart adversary would — find the weakest point, the thing you're hoping nobody notices, and where it breaks under pressure.
As a process B 70/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: when it triggers, failures and branches, progress reporting
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
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:28Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)1. **Adopt the adversary's goal.** Genuinely try to make the plan fail — a real red team, not a gentle review.
quoted
Files scanned: 1. 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 70/100
- 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
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 30 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 723 tokens
- 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
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 539: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 9 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 30 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (0 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 87.