CC hunt-ldap
Hunt LDAP Injection and XPath Injection
Hunt LDAP Injection and XPath Injection
As a process C 60/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, running it twice
This is a copy of a skill from another catalog; the rating counts the canonical one: hunt-ldap (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:35Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)> public platforms (most live on internal-pentest reports). This skill is
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:167Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)password spraying, hash cracking or real attribute extraction without separately
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-shortdescription under 40 chars: too little signal for triggering - 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
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "sources" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "report_count" - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 62): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 60/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Failures and branches. 2 branches
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 85Steps. 21 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3328 tokens
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
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)
- +3Description length 39: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Structure: 16 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 21 items
- +4Has examples (4 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 71.