android-legacy-security
Harden Intent handling, WebView configuration, and FileProvider access in Android apps. Use when securing Intent extras, configuring WebViews, or exposing files via FileProvider.
67
82%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
100%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a strong, well-crafted skill description that clearly identifies its domain (Android app security), lists specific concrete actions, and includes an explicit 'Use when' clause with natural trigger terms. It is concise, uses third-person voice correctly, and occupies a distinct niche that minimizes conflict with other skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'Harden Intent handling', 'WebView configuration', and 'FileProvider access'. These are distinct, well-defined Android security tasks rather than vague abstractions. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (harden Intent handling, WebView configuration, FileProvider access) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause covering securing Intent extras, configuring WebViews, or exposing files via FileProvider). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords that Android developers would use: 'Intent extras', 'WebViews', 'FileProvider', 'Android apps', 'securing', 'configuring', 'exposing files'. These are terms developers naturally use when discussing Android security hardening. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive with a clear niche: Android-specific security hardening for three well-defined components (Intent, WebView, FileProvider). Unlikely to conflict with general coding, web security, or other mobile development skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
64%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a reasonably well-structured security hardening skill that is concise and assumes Claude's competence with Android concepts. Its main weaknesses are the lack of executable code examples inline (relying on a referenced file that doesn't exist in the bundle) and the absence of validation/verification steps for security-critical operations. Adding concrete code snippets and a verification checklist would significantly improve it.
Suggestions
Add at least one inline executable code example per section (e.g., a manifest snippet for exported=false, a Kotlin WebView configuration block, a FileProvider XML + code snippet) rather than deferring all examples to a missing reference file.
Add a verification checklist or validation steps (e.g., 'Run `aapt dump xmltree` to verify exported flags' or 'Test WebView with javascript: URIs to confirm JS is disabled') to ensure hardening was applied correctly.
Provide the referenced `references/implementation.md` bundle file, or inline the critical examples if the bundle won't be available.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is lean and efficient. It avoids explaining what Intents, WebViews, or FileProviders are, assumes Claude's Android knowledge, and every bullet point delivers actionable security guidance without padding. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides specific configuration directives (e.g., `android:exported="false"`, `javaScriptEnabled = false`, `EncryptedSharedPreferences`) but lacks executable code examples. The concrete implementation is deferred to `references/implementation.md`, which is not provided in the bundle, leaving the main skill without copy-paste ready code. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The content is organized into clear topical sections with specific directives, but there is no sequenced workflow, no validation checkpoints, and no feedback loops for verifying that hardening steps were correctly applied. For security hardening (a domain where missed steps can be destructive), explicit verification steps would be expected. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references `references/implementation.md` for detailed examples, which is a good one-level-deep structure. However, the bundle has no files, meaning the referenced file doesn't exist, undermining the progressive disclosure. Additionally, the same file is referenced twice for different topics, suggesting the reference structure could be more granular. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
metadata_version | 'metadata.version' is missing | Warning |
metadata_field | 'metadata' should map string keys to string values | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standard
- Commit
3df717f
- 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.