BD fedramp-compliance
Implement FedRAMP requirements for federal cloud services. Configure NIST 800-53 controls and continuous monitoring. Use when providing cloud services to US federal agencies.
Implement FedRAMP requirements for federal cloud services.
As a process D 49/100 · Unfinished process — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
This is a copy of a skill from another catalog; the rating counts the canonical one: fedramp-compliance (sickn33/agentic-awesome-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 · 2
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 2
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:359Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)deliverable: "Penetration test report with findings"
quoted -
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:433Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)- "Annual penetration testing"
quoted
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "risk" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "source" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "source_repo" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "source_type" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "date_added" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "license_source" - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 17): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 49/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 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
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 4815 tokens
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 23 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- low 13 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)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 174: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 15 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 23 items
- +4Has examples (8 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 82.