SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AB security-baseline

Establish a security baseline for a website or web app. Use this skill when configuring HTTPS and TLS, setting security headers, planning secrets management, evaluating CSP policies, doing a basic security audit, or hardening a site before launch. Triggers on security headers, HTTPS, TLS, CSP, content security policy, HSTS, secrets management, vulnerability scan, security audit, harden, OWASP, security baseline. Also triggers when a security review is required for compliance or before going live.

rampstackco/claude-skills Agent Skills author: rampstackco 2 files body ≈ 2 825 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 8 h ago

Establish a security baseline for a website or web app.

As a process B 77/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: running it twice

ProcedureOperations and projectstype 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
A
95/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
99
Quality 40%
89
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
77/100
Nearly there
Running it twice w 4
30
Failures and branches w 10
50
Result and completion w 14
60
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten
This is a copy of a skill from another catalog; the rating counts the canonical one: security-baseline (rampstackco/claude-skills)

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:275
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      **Penetration test ignored.** Pen test report sits on a shelf. Test results without remediation are worse than no test.

    Files scanned: 2. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "catalog_summary"
    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "display_order"
    • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 134): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

    Process rating: all ten parameters 77/100

    • 30Running it twice. 4 mutating operations with no state check
    • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
    • 85Steps. 103 steps, 3 vague phrases
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2825 tokens
    • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
    • medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
    • low 11 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill

    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)
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 501: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 30 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 103 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 89.