CB conducting-post-incident-lessons-learned
Facilitate structured post-incident reviews to identify root causes, document what worked and failed, and produce actionable recommendations to improve future incident response.
Facilitate structured post-incident reviews to identify root causes, document what worked and failed, and produce actionable recommendations to improve future…
As a process B 67/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: when it triggers, 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 · 3
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 3
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:83Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Why 1: Why did ransomware encrypt production servers?
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:179Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)1. **Ransomware Post-Mortem**: Review entire kill chain from initial access to encryption. Identify detection gaps and backup failures.
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:180Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)2. **Phishing Campaign Review**: Analyze why users clicked, why email filters missed it, and how to improve training.
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 "mitre_attack" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "nist_csf"
Process rating: all ten parameters 67/100
- 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
- 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 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 1531 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)
- -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 177: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 14 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 21 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (6 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 78.