CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

review-security-and-privacy

Review a code change for trust-boundary, authorization, injection, secret-handling, logging, and privacy disclosure risks. Use when reviewing for security, privacy, vulnerabilities, auth bugs, secrets in logs, sensitive-data exposure, or PII disclosure.

1.08x
Quality

92%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

98%

1.08x

Average score across 18 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

The canonical home for this skill is tessl/code-review

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A tight, well-structured review-lens skill: every section adds non-obvious guidance and the threshold gate prevents false positives. The two weaknesses are minor — a duplicated exploit-path rule across Method and Threshold, and the absence of one or two example findings that would make the reporting format fully concrete.

Suggestions

Consolidate the duplicate exploit-path rule: state the 'no finding without a named actor, controlled input, and reachable sink' requirement once (e.g., in Threshold) and remove the near-identical sentence from Method.

Add one or two compact example findings showing the required reporting format in action (e.g., an authorization finding naming the actor, missing scope check, exposed data, and smallest fix).

Optionally note in Method how to handle chained/indirect sinks concretely (e.g., input reaching a query builder, template, or eval path) to sharpen the trace step.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence (no concept tutorials, no library recommendations), but the exploit-path requirement is stated twice — "Do not report a security smell without an exploit path through the changed code" in Method and "Do not report hypothetical risks without a plausible path through the changed code" in Threshold — a minor redundancy that could be consolidated into one section.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete directive guidance throughout: the reporting format names required evidence elements ("the untrusted input or controlled authority, the sink or disclosure it reaches, and the impact") and cites concrete fix patterns ("validate at this boundary, parameterize this query, escape this output, move this secret to config"). It falls short of anchor 5 only because there are no worked example findings covering common cases.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear, coherent sequence — start at boundaries, trace untrusted input, follow data outward, apply the Threshold gate (exploit path required before reporting), then report in the specified format. This is a single-purpose skill under 50 lines with an unambiguous action and an explicit checkpoint, so the simple-skill exception applies.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A 36-line skill with no need for external references and no bundle files present; the four well-organized sections (Scope, Method, Threshold, Reporting) are appropriately placed inline, satisfying the under-50-lines exception for a 5.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

95%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong description: concrete scope enumeration, natural trigger terms with synonyms, explicit what-and-when structure, and a distinct niche. The only minor gap is reliance on a single action verb with the specificity carried by the enumerated risk categories.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Review a code change for trust-boundary, authorization, injection, secret-handling, logging, and privacy disclosure risks" enumerates several specific review targets with comprehensive risk coverage, but uses a single action verb rather than multiple distinct concrete actions, so it sits at anchor 4 rather than 5 and clearly above the 1-2-action coverage of anchor 3.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("Review a code change for trust-boundary, authorization, injection, secret-handling, logging, and privacy disclosure risks") and when ("Use when reviewing for security, privacy, vulnerabilities, auth bugs, secrets in logs, sensitive-data exposure, or PII disclosure") with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The when-clause covers natural user phrasing with synonyms: "security, privacy, vulnerabilities, auth bugs, secrets in logs, sensitive-data exposure, or PII disclosure" — users would naturally say these when they need this skill.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves out a clear niche (security/privacy review of code changes) with distinct trigger terms (vulnerabilities, PII, auth bugs, secrets in logs) that would not fire for unrelated skills; minimal conflict risk.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

Cornebidouille/tessl-carnival

Path

review-lenses/review-security-and-privacy/SKILL.md

Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.