CB performing-ransomware-tabletop-exercise
Plans and facilitates tabletop exercises simulating ransomware incidents, using realistic scenarios based on threat actors like LockBit and ALPHV/BlackCat with injects covering double extortion and backup destruction, then evaluates responses against NIST CSF and CISA guidelines. Use when planning or running a ransomware tabletop exercise or incident response readiness drill.
Plans and facilitates tabletop exercises simulating ransomware incidents, using realistic scenarios based on threat actors like LockBit and ALPHV/BlackCat…
As a process B 70/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: failures and branches, running it twice, progress reporting
How to improve
For the model run — optional
- 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 · 17
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 17
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityassets/template.md:1Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Ransomware Tabletop Exercise Template
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityassets/template.md:11Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| Scenario | [Threat Actor] ransomware attack |
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/api-reference.md:1Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Ransomware Tabletop Exercise - API Reference
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/api-reference.md:41Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- `network_segmentation` - Restrict lateral movement paths
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/standards.md:1Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Standards & References - Ransomware Tabletop Exercise
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/standards.md:18Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- Ransomware-specific scenarios updated to reflect current threat landscape
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/standards.md:21Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)## Ransomware-Specific Guidance
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/standards.md:24Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- Ransomware response checklist that exercises should validate
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/standards.md:28Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)### NIST IR 8374: Ransomware Risk Management
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/workflows.md:1Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Workflows - Ransomware Tabletop Exercise
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/workflows.md:14Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)|-- Supply chain ransomware (vendor compromise)
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/workflows.md:15Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)|-- Cloud ransomware (SaaS/IaaS targeted)
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:2Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)name: performing-ransomware-tabletop-exercise
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:3Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)description: 'Plans and facilitates tabletop exercises simulating ransomware incidents,
quoted -
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:6Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)against NIST CSF and CISA guidelines. Use when planning or running a ransomware
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:11Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)subdomain: ransomware-defense
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:13Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- ransomware
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"
Process rating: all ten parameters 70/100
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 2 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
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 69 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2638 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
- -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
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 378: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 14 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 69 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 82.