CC testing-for-xss-vulnerabilities-with-burpsuite
Identifying and validating cross-site scripting vulnerabilities using Burp Suite's scanner, intruder, and repeater tools during authorized security assessments.
Identifying and validating cross-site scripting vulnerabilities using Burp Suite's scanner, intruder, and repeater tools during authorized security assessments.
As a process C 60/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: when it triggers, failures and branches, running it twice
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 · 3
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 3
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:33Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- During authorized web application penetration testing to find reflected, stored, and DOM-based XSS
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:37Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- During bug bounty programs targeting XSS vulnerabilities
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:228Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Keylogger payload (demonstrates impact severity):
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 60/100
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (web) 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 2665 tokens
- low The response is described with custom markup (3 tags): a typed call is more reliable
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 160: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 19 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 11 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: 78.