CC performing-cryptographic-audit-of-application
A cryptographic audit systematically reviews an application's use of cryptographic primitives, protocols, and key management to identify vulnerabilities such as weak algorithms, insecure modes, hardco
A cryptographic audit systematically reviews an application's use of cryptographic primitives, protocols, and key management to identify vulnerabilities such…
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 · 3
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 3
-
low Secrets in code
secret-password-literalscripts/process.py:281Hard-coded password / key literal (may be an example) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)password = "Supe…123!"
quoted -
low Secrets in code
secret-labelled-tokenscripts/process.py:282Labelled token / key literal (vendor format unknown — verify it is not a live credential) (placeholder value)api_key = "sk-a…def"
placeholder -
low Secrets in code
secret-password-literalscripts/process.py:282Hard-coded password / key literal (may be an example) (placeholder value)api_key = "sk-a…def"
placeholder
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 "nist_csf" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "mitre_attack" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "mitre_f3" - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 24, 45): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
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. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (python) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Steps. 27 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 673 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
- +4No input/output examples
- -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 200: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 9 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 27 items
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 71.