CC implementing-continuous-security-validation-with-bas
Deploys Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) platforms such as SafeBreach, AttackIQ, Picus, Cymulate, Pentera, or SCYTHE to continuously validate endpoint, network, email-gateway, SIEM, and incident-response effectiveness by safely emulating MITRE ATT&CK techniques. Use when moving beyond point-in-time pentesting to continuous control validation, or standing up automated adversary emulation.
Deploys Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) platforms such as SafeBreach, AttackIQ, Picus, Cymulate, Pentera, or SCYTHE to continuously validate endpoint…
As a process C 51/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, failures and branches
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 · 7
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 7
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/api-reference.md:40Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| T1021.002 | SMB Admin Shares | Lateral Movement |
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/standards.md:15Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- **CIS Controls v8.1 Control 18**: Penetration Testing
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:6Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)MITRE ATT&CK techniques. Use when moving beyond point-in-time pentesting to continuous
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:41Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) is an automated, continuous approach to validating security control effectiveness by safely executing real-world attack techniques against production security infras
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:63Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| Aspect | BAS | Penetration Testing | Red Team |
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:77Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| Initial Access | Phishing payload delivery, exploit public apps | Email gateway, WAF, IPS |
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:80Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| Privilege Escalation | Token manipulation, UAC bypass | EDR, PAM, SIEM |
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 "d3fend_techniques" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "nist_csf" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "mitre_attack"
Process rating: all ten parameters 51/100
- 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. 5 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Steps. 28 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2234 tokens
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
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 392: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 16 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 28 items
- +4Has examples (5 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 75.