CC exploiting-insecure-deserialization
Identifying and exploiting insecure deserialization vulnerabilities in Java, PHP, Python, and .NET applications to achieve remote code execution during authorized penetration tests.
Identifying and exploiting insecure deserialization vulnerabilities in Java, PHP, Python, and .NET applications to achieve remote code execution during…
As a process C 62/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: when it triggers, failures and branches, progress reporting
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 · 8
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 8
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/api-reference.md:8Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| pickle | stdlib | Python pickle payload generation for testing |
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:42Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- **Authorization**: Written penetration testing agreement with RCE testing scope
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:323Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- Internal network access confirmed via reverse shell
A further 5 matches are quotations in this security skill's documentation and are not counted as findings.
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_csf" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "mitre_attack"
Process rating: all ten parameters 62/100
- 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
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (git, python) that frontmatter does not declare
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Steps. 12 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2798 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
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)
- -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
- +3Description length 181: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 18 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 12 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (8 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 78.