CB performing-ransomware-response
Executes a structured ransomware incident response from detection through containment, forensic analysis, decryption assessment, recovery, and post-incident hardening, covering ransom negotiation, backup integrity verification, and regulatory notification. Use when actively responding to a ransomware outbreak or crypto-ransomware infection, or deciding on ransom payment and containment steps.
Executes a structured ransomware incident response from detection through containment, forensic analysis, decryption assessment, recovery, and post-incident…
As a process B 68/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: failures and branches, running it twice, 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 · 10
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 10
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/api-reference.md:1Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# API Reference: Ransomware Response
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/api-reference.md:3Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)## Ransomware Identification Services
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/api-reference.md:7Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| ID Ransomware | https://id-ransomware.malwarehunterteam.com/ | Upload ransom note or sample for identification |
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/api-reference.md:15Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| OFAC SDN List | https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/ | Check if ransomware group is sanctioned |
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/api-reference.md:16Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| OFAC Advisory | https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions | Ransomware payment guidance |
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:2Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)name: performing-ransomware-response
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:3Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)description: 'Executes a structured ransomware incident response from detection through
quoted -
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:6Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)notification. Use when actively responding to a ransomware outbreak or crypto-ransomware
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:13Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- ransomware
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:61Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Performing Ransomware Response
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 "mitre_attack" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "mitre_f3" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "nist_csf"
Process rating: all ten parameters 68/100
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 14 mutating operations with no state check
- 50When 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. 60 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2554 tokens
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
- -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
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 395: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 15 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 60 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (3 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 82.