CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

engagement-lifecycle

Red team engagement lifecycle management — initiation, phase transitions, go/no-go gates, deconfliction, emergency procedures, completion.

56

Quality

65%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Critical

Do not install without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./packages/decepticon/decepticon/skills/standard/decepticon/engagement-lifecycle/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

62%

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

The body is well-structured with clear gated workflows, concrete commands, and explicit validation checkpoints, but it is somewhat long with inline content that could be offloaded to bundle files and several reporting/cleanup sections that stay descriptive rather than executable. Tightening the tables and adding concrete reporting commands would raise the weaker dimensions.

Suggestions

Move the engagement metrics table and final reporting checklist into a references file (e.g., REPORTING.md) and link to it from a concise overview section to improve progressive disclosure.

Replace descriptive reporting/cleanup guidance ("suggest defensive controls," "list all artifacts deployed") with concrete, executable steps or commands to lift actionability toward 3.

Trim redundancy between the engagement-types table and the phase-transition prose to tighten conciseness.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient — checklists, tables, and short gated steps without explaining concepts Claude already knows — but at ~118 lines it carries some redundancy (e.g., the engagement-types and metrics tables) that could be tightened, fitting the score-2 anchor of mostly efficient but could be tighter rather than the lean score-3 anchor.

2 / 3

Actionability

Concrete guidance is present (e.g., `nc -z c2-sliver 31337`, specific paths, gate criteria), but substantial portions of the reporting and cleanup sections are descriptive rather than executable ("suggest defensive controls," "identify what's missing and address it"), matching the score-2 anchor of some concrete guidance but incomplete rather than fully copy-paste-ready score 3.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The phase-transition protocol is clearly sequenced with explicit go/no-go gate checks, a pre-flight checklist, cross-phase dependency handling, and an emergency-stop feedback loop, matching the score-3 anchor of clear sequence with explicit validation steps and error-recovery feedback loops.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/scripts/assets all absent) and the skill is a single ~118-line file with well-organized sections, but content that could be offloaded (metrics table, final-reporting checklist) is inline with no one-level-deep references, fitting the score-2 anchor of structure present but content that should be separate is inline rather than the cleanly split score-3 anchor.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

67%

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 is specific and distinctive, naming concrete lifecycle phases and actions, but it omits an explicit "Use when..." trigger clause and leans on technical phrasing that limits natural trigger-term coverage. Adding a user-facing trigger clause would lift completeness and trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Append an explicit "Use when..." clause to the description (e.g., "Use when starting, transitioning, or wrapping up a red team engagement") so completeness is not capped at 2.

Soften or broaden technical terms with natural phrasings a user would actually say (e.g., add "start engagement," "wrap up engagement," "pause or stop an engagement") to improve trigger-term coverage.

Keep the concise enumerated action list as-is; it already earns full specificity marks.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description enumerates multiple concrete lifecycle actions — "initiation, phase transitions, go/no-go gates, deconfliction, emergency procedures, completion" — rather than vague abstractions, matching the score-3 anchor of listing several specific concrete actions.

3 / 3

Completeness

It clearly states what the skill does but provides no "Use when..." trigger clause; trigger guidance lives only in metadata.when_to_use, so per the rubric a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 2.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Domain-natural terms like "go/no-go," "deconfliction," and "phase transitions" appear, but the phrasing leans technical and omits common user variations, fitting the score-2 anchor of relevant keywords missing common variations rather than the broad natural coverage of score 3.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The red-team engagement lifecycle orchestration niche is highly specific with distinct triggers, making it unlikely to fire for the wrong skill, matching the score-3 anchor of a clear niche with distinct triggers.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

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.