CB conducting-cloud-penetration-testing
This skill outlines methodologies for performing authorized penetration testing against AWS, Azure, and GCP cloud environments. It covers understanding the shared responsibility model for testing scope, leveraging cloud-specific attack tools like Pacu and ScoutSuite, exploiting IAM misconfigurations, testing for SSRF to cloud metadata services, and reporting findings aligned to MITRE ATT&CK Cloud matrix.
This skill outlines methodologies for performing authorized penetration testing against AWS, Azure, and GCP cloud environments.
As a process B 73/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: failures and branches, progress reporting
How to improve
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 · 10
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 10
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/api-reference.md:1Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# API Reference: Cloud Penetration Testing Agent
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/api-reference.md:5Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)Enumerates AWS IAM users, roles, cross-account trusts, IMDSv1 instances, public S3 buckets, and Lambda secrets to identify privilege escalation paths and misconfigurations. For authorized penetration
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/api-reference.md:38Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)Tests if a policy allows `iam:CreatePolicyVersion` permission which enables privilege escalation.
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:14Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- cloud-pentesting
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:48Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Conducting Cloud Penetration Testing
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:54Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- When compliance requirements mandate annual penetration testing of cloud infrastructure
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:56Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- When assessing lateral movement risk across multi-account or multi-cloud environments
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:63Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- AWS, Azure, or GCP penetration testing policy acknowledgment (AWS no longer requires pre-approval for most services)
-
low Secrets in code
secret-high-entropy-tokenSKILL.md:160High-entropy token-like string (may be an id, hash or a credential) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)-H "X-aw…ds: 21600")
quoted -
low Exfiltration
net-credential-useSKILL.md:161Credential used in a network call (verify the destination is the intended service) (documentation of a security skill)curl -H "X-aw…en: $TOKEN" \
security skill
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 "d3fend_techniques" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "nist_csf" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "mitre_attack"
Process rating: all ten parameters 73/100
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 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. 21 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2984 tokens
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
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 407: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 16 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 21 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (7 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 82.