BB building-cloud-siem-with-sentinel
Deploy Microsoft Sentinel as a cloud-native SIEM/SOAR by configuring multi-cloud data connectors (AWS, Azure, GCP), writing KQL detection and hunting queries, and building automated Logic Apps response playbooks. Use when establishing a centralized SOC for multi-cloud environments, migrating from a legacy SIEM, or performing petabyte-scale threat hunting; not for AWS-only setups where Security Hub/GuardDuty suffice or for endpoint EDR needs.
Deploy Microsoft Sentinel as a cloud-native SIEM/SOAR by configuring multi-cloud data connectors (AWS, Azure, GCP), writing KQL detection and hunting queries…
As a process B 72/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: failures and branches, running it twice
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 · 4
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 4
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:140Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (detector / deny-list definition)// Detect mass S3 object deletion (potential ransomware)
detector -
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:201Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (detector / deny-list definition)// Threat hunting query: detect lateral movement across AWS accounts
detector -
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:277Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (detector / deny-list definition)3. Build a Fusion detection rule that links Azure AD risk events with subsequent AWS privilege escalation activity
detector -
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:279Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)5. Create a workbook showing the timeline from initial compromise through lateral movement to AWS
Files scanned: 4. 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 "nist_ai_rmf" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "atlas_techniques" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "nist_csf" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "mitre_attack" - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 7): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 72/100
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 30Running it twice. 8 mutating operations with no state check
- 50When 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. 20 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3053 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
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
- -41 reference files, but SKILL.md never points to them: the model will not open them
- -31 of 1 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 445: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 14 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 20 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (9 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 82.