CC testing-for-business-logic-vulnerabilities
Manually identifies flaws in application business logic - price manipulation, multi-step workflow bypass, and privilege escalation - by intercepting and modifying requests with Burp Suite, going beyond what automated vulnerability scanners detect. Use for e-commerce checkout/cart flows, voucher and rewards systems, or any assessment where scanners find little but business rules need scrutiny.
Manually identifies flaws in application business logic - price manipulation, multi-step workflow bypass, and privilege escalation - by intercepting and…
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 · 5
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 5
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:4Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)multi-step workflow bypass, and privilege escalation - by intercepting and modifying
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:45Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- **Authorization**: Written penetration testing agreement covering business logic testing
-
low Exfiltration
net-credential-useSKILL.md:148Credential used in a network call (verify the destination is the intended service) (documentation of a security skill)curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $UNVERIFIED_TOKEN" \
security skill -
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:259Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)Assess authorization logic for privilege escalation through business processes.
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:297Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| **Privilege Escalation** | Gaining higher permissions through business process manipulation |
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 "nist_csf" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "mitre_attack"
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. 3 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. 11 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3095 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
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- -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
- +3Description length 395: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 18 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 11 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (7 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 78.