CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

common-owasp

OWASP Top 10 audit checklists for Web Applications (2021), APIs (2023), and Mobile (2024). Use when performing any security review, PR review, or codebase audit touching web, mobile, or API code.

Quality

82%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

72%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 well-structured, token-efficient checklist skill with concrete detection signals and clean one-level-deep progressive disclosure. Its main weakness is workflow clarity: the review process is implied by section order rather than sequenced, and the closing anchor sections are cryptic.

Suggestions

Add a short numbered workflow (e.g., 1. Apply always-apply rules on every code write; 2. For reviews, walk each table row and mark ✅/⚠️/🔴; 3. Report findings with the P0 cap applied) so the sequence and checkpoints are explicit rather than implicit.

Remove or rewrite the 'Canonical response anchors' and 'Remediation anchors' sections into a plain-language line (e.g., remediation guidance for DTO projection, CORS allowlists, JWT expiry, and rate limiting) or fold them into the existing rules so every token earns its place.

Include one or two concrete remediation snippets inline (e.g., a query with an owner filter, or a DTO projection example) so the body is actionable on fixes without requiring a jump to the reference files.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean: dense signal tables and terse rules with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows. The trailing 'Canonical response anchors' and 'Remediation anchors' sections are cryptic fragment lists ('Additional task-grounded exact anchors: rate limit, IDOR/BOLA, DTO projection') that could be trimmed or clarified, fitting anchor 4 rather than 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete detection signals are given throughout ('findById(params.id) without owner filter', 'cleartextTrafficPermitted=true', 'JWT without expiry'), plus a marking protocol and explicit always-apply rules. It is mostly executable guidance but the body contains no remediation code or commands (those live in the references), leaving minor gaps versus anchor 5.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The intended sequence (apply always-apply rules, activate the checklist, mark each item, report) is present but only implicitly via section order; there is no numbered workflow and the marking scheme is the sole implicit checkpoint. This matches anchor 3 (sequence present, checkpoints missing or implicit) rather than 4, which requires a clearly sequenced process with most checkpoints explicit.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a genuine overview: summary signal tables inline, with full detection signals split into three one-level-deep reference files (references/owasp-web.md, owasp-api.md, owasp-mobile.md), all of which exist and contain substantial matching content, signaled both inline and in a dedicated References section. This matches anchor 5; it is not 4 because there are no organization gaps or buried references.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

87%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 that clearly states both what the skill provides and when to use it, with specific trigger phrases users would naturally say. Minor room to improve via broader synonym coverage and more granular action verbs.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names a concrete deliverable ('audit checklists') across three specific standards with years ('Web Applications (2021), APIs (2023), and Mobile (2024)'), giving several specific capabilities. It falls short of anchor 5 because it does not enumerate multiple distinct concrete actions (e.g., detect, review, remediate) beyond providing checklists.

4 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both 'what' (OWASP Top 10 audit checklists for three named standards) and 'when' (concrete trigger phrases: security review, PR review, codebase audit on web/mobile/API code), matching anchor 5 exactly. Not below 5 because no trigger guidance is weak or implied.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'Use when performing any security review, PR review, or codebase audit touching web, mobile, or API code' covers natural phrases users would say. A few common synonyms are missing (e.g., 'pentest', 'vulnerability', 'threat model'), so it fits anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche (OWASP Top 10 security auditing for web/API/mobile) with distinct, specific triggers and minimal overlap with unrelated skills. Not 4 because the OWASP framing is highly specific and unlikely to fire for the wrong skill.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

metadata_field

'metadata' should map string keys to string values

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository

HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standard

Path

.github/skills/common/common-owasp/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.