SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

CC testing-ransomware-recovery-procedures

Tests and validates ransomware recovery procedures - backup restore operations (e.g. with Restic), RTO/RPO target verification, recovery sequencing, and clean-restore validation - to confirm organizational resilience against destructive ransomware attacks. Use when validating that recovery plans work under realistic conditions, measuring RTO/RPO against business requirements, or testing restore integrity after simulated encryption.

mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills Agent Skills author: mukul975 Apache-2.0 4 files · 1 script body ≈ 1 626 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 5 d ago

Tests and validates ransomware recovery procedures - backup restore operations (e.g. with Restic), RTO/RPO target verification, recovery sequencing, and…

As a process C 62/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, failures and branches, running it twice

ProcedureAWSSecuritytype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
C
87/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
92
Quality 40%
79
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
62/100
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 · 8

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Medium and low: 8
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security references/api-reference.md:1
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      # API Reference: Testing Ransomware Recovery Procedures
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security references/api-reference.md:58
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      | Incident Declaration | `incident_declared` | Simulated ransomware detection time |
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security references/api-reference.md:131
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      - CISA Ransomware Guide: https://www.cisa.gov/stopransomware
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security SKILL.md:2
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      name: testing-ransomware-recovery-procedures
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security SKILL.md:3
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      description: Tests and validates ransomware recovery procedures - backup restore operations
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security SKILL.md:5
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (detector / deny-list definition)
      validation - to confirm organizational resilience against destructive ransomware attacks.
      detector
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security SKILL.md:12
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      - ransomware
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security SKILL.md:55
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      # Testing Ransomware Recovery Procedures

    Files scanned: 4. 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"
    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "mitre_f3"

    Process rating: all ten parameters 62/100

    • 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
    • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Steps. 30 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1626 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
    • -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
    • +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
    • +3Description length 435: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 14 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 30 items
    • +4Has examples (4 code blocks)
    • +1License stated

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