CC recovering-from-ransomware-attack
Executes structured ransomware incident recovery following NIST/CISA frameworks: environment isolation, forensic evidence preservation, clean infrastructure rebuild, prioritized restoration from verified backups, credential reset, and Active Directory/database recovery in dependency order. Use when recovering from a ransomware attack, performing post-encryption restoration, or executing disaster recovery after ransomware encryption.
Executes structured ransomware incident recovery following NIST/CISA frameworks: environment isolation, forensic evidence preservation, clean infrastructure…
As a process C 63/100 · Has gaps — 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 · 13
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 13
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/api-reference.md:1Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# API Reference: Recovering from Ransomware Attack
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/api-reference.md:53Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- CISA Ransomware Guide: https://www.cisa.gov/stopransomware/ransomware-guide
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/api-reference.md:54Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- NIST SP 1800-26: https://www.nccoe.nist.gov/data-integrity-recovering-ransomware
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/standards.md:1Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Standards & References - Recovering from Ransomware Attack
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/standards.md:5Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- NIST IR 8374: Ransomware Risk Management - Recovery section
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/workflows.md:1Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Workflows - Recovering from Ransomware Attack
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:2Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)name: recovering-from-ransomware-attack
-
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 structured ransomware incident recovery following NIST/CISA
quoted -
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:7Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)a ransomware attack, performing post-encryption restoration, or executing disaster
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:8Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)recovery after ransomware encryption.
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:12Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)subdomain: ransomware-defense
A further 2 matches are quotations in this security skill's documentation and are not counted as findings.
Files scanned: 7. 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 63/100
- 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
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash) that frontmatter does not declare
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Steps. 29 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2879 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 436: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 15 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 29 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (8 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 82.