CC conducting-social-engineering-penetration-test
Design and execute a social engineering penetration test combining OSINT-driven target profiling with phishing, vishing, smishing, and physical pretexting campaigns using tools like GoPhish, the Social Engineer Toolkit (SET), and Evilginx to measure human security resilience. Use when scoping or running an authorized human-attack-surface test and reporting results to identify security awareness training gaps.
Design and execute a social engineering penetration test combining OSINT-driven target profiling with phishing, vishing, smishing, and physical pretexting…
As a process C 56/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, failures and branches
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-securityassets/template.md:1Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Social Engineering Penetration Test — Report Template
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/api-reference.md:1Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Social Engineering Penetration Test — API Reference
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/standards.md:1Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Standards — Social Engineering Penetration Testing
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/standards.md:4Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- PTES Social Engineering Section: http://www.pentest-standard.org/index.php/Social_Engineering
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/workflows.md:1Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Workflows — Social Engineering Penetration Testing
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:3Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)description: Design and execute a social engineering penetration test combining OSINT-driven target profiling with phishing, vishing, smishing, and physical pretexting campaigns using tools like GoPhi
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:69Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Conducting Social Engineering Penetration Test
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:73Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)Social engineering penetration testing assesses an organization's human attack surface through controlled simulation of real-world deception techniques. According to Verizon DBIR 2024, the human eleme
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:78Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- When conducting security assessments that involve conducting social engineering penetration test
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:134Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)## Phase 2 — Phishing Campaign
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 "atlas_techniques" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "nist_ai_rmf" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "nist_csf" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "mitre_attack" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "mitre_f3"
Process rating: all ten parameters 56/100
- 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. 4 mutating operations with no state check
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 85Steps. 15 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2440 tokens
- low 11 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
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 412: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 23 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 15 items
- +4Has examples (8 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 75.