SKILLEMALL.ai

BC testing-android-intents-for-vulnerabilities

Tests Android inter-process communication (IPC) through intents for vulnerabilities including intent injection, unauthorized component access, broadcast sniffing, pending intent hijacking, and content provider data leakage. Use when assessing Android app attack surface through exported components, testing intent-based data flows, or evaluating IPC security. Activates for requests involving Android intent security, IPC testing, exported component analysis, or Drozer assessment.

mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills Agent Skills author: mukul975 Apache-2.0 8 files · 2 scripts body ≈ 1 542 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 5 d ago

Tests Android inter-process communication (IPC) through intents for vulnerabilities including intent injection, unauthorized component access, broadcast…

As a process C 55/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, failures and branches, running it twice

ProcedureSecuritytype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
B
91/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
99
Quality 40%
79
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
55/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Failures and branches w 10
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

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 · 1

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Medium and low: 1
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security SKILL.md:43
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      - Performing IPC-focused penetration testing on Android applications

    Files scanned: 8. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "domain"
    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "subdomain"
    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "nist_csf"
    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "mitre_attack"

    Process rating: all ten parameters 55/100

    • 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
    • 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
    • 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (python) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
    • 100Steps. 18 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1542 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
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • -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 481: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 13 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 18 items
    • +4Has examples (6 code blocks)
    • +1License stated

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 79.