CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

detector-overview

Stage 2 vulnerability detector playbook. Reads source around CANDIDATE nodes and promotes real bugs to VULNERABILITY + HYPOTHESIS. Read-only. Load at detector-agent startup.

64

Quality

76%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./packages/decepticon/decepticon/skills/plugins/detector/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

82%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 concise, highly actionable detector playbook with a clear evidence-gated workflow and well-structured sections; its main gap is the absence of an explicit error-recovery feedback loop in an otherwise batch-oriented process.

Suggestions

Add an explicit feedback loop for uncertain candidates (e.g., 'If source/sink cannot be confirmed, emit hypothesis-only and re-queue rather than promoting').

De-duplicate the no-bash/no-scanner constraint — state it once and reference it from the anti-patterns list.

Consider a short post-emit verification step (e.g., confirm the derived_from/mapped_to edges resolved) to close the batch workflow.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Lean playbook with no concept over-explanation and tight, useful tables; the only redundancy is the no-bash/no-scanner constraint restated in both the intro and the anti-patterns section.

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable copy-paste-ready code (kg_query/kg_add_node/kg_add_edge with concrete props), specific playbook paths with enumerated vuln classes, and a concrete rejection recipe — common cases are covered.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Clear numbered sequence with a built-in verification gate (read ±30 lines, identify source/sink/taint/sanitizer, then decide promote/reject/hypothesis) plus a severity checklist, but no explicit feedback loop for uncertain cases or post-emit re-validation.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized into clear sections with a well-signaled one-level-deep reference to per-class playbooks (/skills/standard/analyst/<vuln-class>/SKILL.md); the ~60-line body is slightly over the simple-skill threshold and has no bundle files of its own, keeping it just short of a 5.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

70%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 concrete, distinct, domain-specific description that clearly states what the skill does but relies on an operational load-time cue rather than an explicit 'Use when...' trigger scenario, which caps completeness.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming the triggering scenario (e.g., 'Use when promoting scanner candidates to confirmed vulnerabilities during stage 2 detection').

Mention the rejection/false-positive path alongside promotion so the action set reads as comprehensive.

Include a couple of natural synonyms (e.g., 'false positives', 'taint analysis') to broaden trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — 'Reads source around CANDIDATE nodes', 'promotes real bugs to VULNERABILITY + HYPOTHESIS', 'Read-only' — with only minor coverage gaps (rejection of false positives is implied, not stated).

4 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear, but the only 'when' is the operational instruction 'Load at detector-agent startup' — there is no scenario-based 'Use when...' trigger clause, so per the rubric cap completeness stays at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good domain keyword coverage ('vulnerability detector', 'bugs', 'source', 'candidate', 'hypothesis') that a security-pipeline user would naturally say, though a few common synonyms are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Highly specific niche ('Stage 2 vulnerability detector', CANDIDATE/VULNERABILITY/HYPOTHESIS graph nodes, detector-agent startup) with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
PurpleAILAB/Decepticon
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.