CC analyzing-threat-actor-ttps-with-mitre-attack
Systematically map threat actor behavior and observed IOCs to the MITRE ATT&CK framework, build technique coverage heatmaps with the ATT&CK Navigator, identify detection gaps, and produce actionable threat intelligence reports across the Enterprise, Mobile, and ICS matrices. Use when analyzing threat actor TTPs, correlating IOCs to specific ATT&CK techniques, or assessing defensive detection coverage against adversary behavior.
Systematically map threat actor behavior and observed IOCs to the MITRE ATT&CK framework, build technique coverage heatmaps with the ATT&CK Navigator…
As a process C 51/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, failures and branches
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 · 9
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 9
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityassets/template.md:35Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| Privilege Escalation | | |
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityassets/template.md:39Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| Lateral Movement | | |
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityassets/template.md:41Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| Command and Control | | |
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/api-reference.md:69Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| Privilege Escalation | TA0004 |
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/api-reference.md:73Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| Lateral Movement | TA0008 |
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/api-reference.md:75Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| Command and Control | TA0011 |
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/standards.md:16Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)6. **Privilege Escalation** (TA0004): Gaining higher-level permissions
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/standards.md:20Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)10. **Lateral Movement** (TA0008): Moving through the environment
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/standards.md:22Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)12. **Command and Control** (TA0011): Communicating with compromised systems
Files scanned: 8. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "domain" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "subdomain" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "d3fend_techniques" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "nist_csf" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "mitre_attack"
Process rating: all ten parameters 51/100
- 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. 2 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (python) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Steps. 20 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2270 tokens
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
- -43 reference files, but SKILL.md never points to them: the model will not open them
- -32 of 2 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 431: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 16 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 20 items
- +4Has examples (5 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 75.