CB performing-content-security-policy-bypass
Analyze Content-Security-Policy headers and bypass them to achieve cross-site scripting by exploiting unsafe-inline/unsafe-eval, whitelisted JSONP endpoints, base-uri and form-action gaps, and nonce/hash weaknesses, then exfiltrate data even without script-src control. Use during web application security assessments or bug bounty hunting when XSS is found but blocked by CSP, or when auditing CSP header configuration for weaknesses.
Analyze Content-Security-Policy headers and bypass them to achieve cross-site scripting by exploiting unsafe-inline/unsafe-eval, whitelisted JSONP endpoints…
As a process B 67/100 · Nearly there — 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 · 3
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 3
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:6Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)script-src control. Use during web application security assessments or bug bounty
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:41Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- During bug bounty hunting where CSP prevents direct XSS exploitation
A further 1 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 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
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 85Steps. 16 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2088 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 435: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 14 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 16 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: 78.