multi-agentic-threat-model
Comprehensive threat modeling for multi-agent systems using CSA MAESTRO 7-layer framework and OWASP Multi-Agentic System Threat Modeling Guide v1.0. Systematically analyzes threats across all architectural layers from foundation models to agent ecosystems.
36
33%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.claude/skills/multi-agentic-threat-model/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
40%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
The description identifies a clear and distinctive niche in multi-agent system threat modeling with specific framework references, which aids differentiation. However, it lacks a 'Use when...' clause entirely, and the concrete actions are limited to the vague 'systematically analyzes threats.' Adding explicit trigger conditions and more specific deliverables would significantly improve skill selection accuracy.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about threat modeling, security analysis, or risk assessment for AI agent systems, multi-agent architectures, or LLM-based applications.'
Include more natural trigger terms users would say, such as 'AI security', 'agent vulnerabilities', 'LLM threats', 'risk assessment', and 'security review'.
List specific concrete actions/outputs, e.g., 'Identifies attack vectors, generates threat matrices, maps vulnerabilities across layers, and produces mitigation recommendations.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (threat modeling for multi-agent systems) and references specific frameworks (CSA MAESTRO, OWASP), but doesn't list concrete actions beyond 'analyzes threats.' Missing specifics like 'generates threat matrices, identifies attack vectors, produces mitigation recommendations.' | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what it does (threat modeling using specific frameworks) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, missing 'Use when' caps completeness at 2, and the 'when' is entirely absent, warranting a 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant technical keywords like 'threat modeling', 'multi-agent systems', 'CSA MAESTRO', 'OWASP', and 'foundation models', but these are fairly specialized. Missing natural user terms like 'security analysis', 'AI security', 'agent vulnerabilities', 'risk assessment', or 'LLM security'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive due to the very specific niche of multi-agent system threat modeling with named frameworks (CSA MAESTRO 7-layer, OWASP Multi-Agentic System Threat Modeling Guide v1.0). Unlikely to conflict with other skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
27%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill reads more like a high-level methodology overview than actionable guidance for Claude. It defines a reasonable framework structure (MAESTRO 7-layer + OWASP) and sequences the analysis steps logically, but critically lacks concrete examples of threat findings, sample outputs, risk scoring criteria, and the referenced template file. Without actionable specifics — such as example threats per layer, a sample finding format, or concrete risk scoring rubrics — Claude would be generating threat models based on its general knowledge rather than following skill-specific guidance.
Suggestions
Add at least one concrete example threat finding per MAESTRO layer with specific attack scenario, impact assessment, and mitigation — showing exactly what the output should look like.
Include the `templates/finding.md` file in the bundle or inline the finding format directly, so Claude knows the exact structure expected for each threat.
Add a concrete risk scoring rubric (e.g., likelihood scale 1-5 with definitions, impact scale with criteria) rather than just referencing 'likelihood vs. impact analysis'.
Provide a worked example of a cross-layer attack chain showing how to trace a threat from Layer 1 through Layer 7, demonstrating the analytical depth expected.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is reasonably structured but includes some explanatory padding (e.g., defining what each MAESTRO layer is when Claude would already understand architectural layering). The extended multi-agent threats section adds useful domain-specific terminology but the descriptions after each dash are somewhat redundant given the threat names are self-explanatory to Claude. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill is entirely abstract and descriptive — it lists categories of analysis to perform but provides no concrete examples, no sample threat findings, no executable commands or code, no templates (references `templates/finding.md` but it doesn't exist in the bundle), and no specific criteria for how to assess likelihood or impact. Claude is told to 'identify threats' and 'analyze attack chains' without any concrete guidance on how. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 6 steps provide a reasonable sequence for threat modeling, moving from architecture mapping through threat analysis to mitigation. However, there are no validation checkpoints, no feedback loops for verifying threat completeness, and no criteria for when analysis at each layer is sufficient before moving to the next step. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references `templates/finding.md` but no bundle files exist, making this a broken reference. There are no supporting files for the detailed layer-specific threat taxonomies, architecture patterns, or risk matrices that would benefit from separate reference documents. Everything is crammed into a single file with no navigation to deeper content. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- OWASP/secure-agent-playbook
- Commit
79fea6b
- 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.