CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

exploit-command-injection

OS Command Injection — exploiting applications that pass user input to OS commands without sanitization. Covers injection operators (;, |, ||, &&, $(), backticks, newline), blind detection (time-based, OOB callback), and bypass techniques (space, keyword, encoding).

Quality

85%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

90%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 lean, highly actionable reference composed almost entirely of executable commands with a clearly gated workflow and an explicit single-call budget rule. The only refinements are adding failure-path guidance to the workflow and splitting advanced exfiltration/bypass detail into a reference file.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Nearly the entire body is executable curl commands and an operator table; the only prose is a single framing line, operational gating ("Once you have confirmed RCE (e.g., `id` or `hostname` output returned)"), and the "Hard rule" budget note. No concept explanations Claude already knows, and every section earns its tokens.

5 / 5

Actionability

Fully copy-paste-ready curl one-liners with parameterized placeholders (<TARGET>, <CALLBACK>) cover the common cases: reflected detection, time-based and OOB blind detection, space/keyword/encoding bypasses, and a complete automated char-by-char extraction loop. The single-call sweep is directly executable after substituting the confirmed sink.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is clear and gated: Detection → Bypass Techniques → "After RCE Confirmed" extraction sweep → Blind Exfiltration, with an explicit checkpoint ("Once you have confirmed RCE") and inline result checks in the sweep loop. It falls short of a 5 because there is no error-recovery/feedback loop guidance for when detection or a given exfiltration channel fails beyond implying the operator should try the next listed technique.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well-organized, there are no nested or orphaned references, and no bundle files exist to mis-navigate. However, the ~110-line body inlines advanced material (the full bypass catalog and the char-by-char oracle automation) that could live in a reference file to keep SKILL.md a leaner overview; the under-50-line exception for a reference-free 5 does not apply.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

75%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 specific, well-scoped description that comprehensively states capabilities with concrete technique details, but it omits any 'when to use' trigger guidance from the description field itself — that guidance exists only in metadata.when_to_use. Moving the key trigger terms into the description would raise completeness without adding much length.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' sentence to the description field itself, e.g., "Use when testing web apps that pass user input to system commands (ping utilities, exec/popen endpoints, os.system calls)." This lifts completeness from 3 to 5.

Fold the most natural trigger terms from metadata.when_to_use (e.g., "cmdi", "shell injection", "os.system", "popen", "shell=True") into the description to improve trigger term coverage from good to comprehensive.

Optionally mention post-exploitation steps covered by the body (credential/secret extraction and blind exfiltration) so the description's capability list matches the skill's full scope.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description enumerates multiple concrete actions with specifics: "exploiting applications that pass user input to OS commands without sanitization", "injection operators (;, |, ||, &&, $(), backticks, newline)", "blind detection (time-based, OOB callback)", and "bypass techniques (space, keyword, encoding)". Coverage is comprehensive across the technique space it claims, matching the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions.

5 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear and specific (exploiting unsanitized user input passed to OS commands, covering operators, blind detection, and bypasses), but the description field contains no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, capping completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. The rich trigger list sits in metadata.when_to_use rather than the description.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It contains the primary natural term "OS Command Injection" plus "OS commands", "bypass", and "time-based", which users would naturally say. Common synonyms and phrasings ("cmdi", "shell injection", "rce", "os.system", "popen") appear only in metadata.when_to_use, not in the description field itself, so a few natural terms are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"OS Command Injection" with operator-level specifics carves a clear niche that is explicitly scoped to OS commands, keeping it distinct from sibling injection skills (SQLi, XSS) and generic RCE skills. Conflict risk is minimal.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

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.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

PurpleAILAB/Decepticon

Path

packages/decepticon/decepticon/skills/standard/exploit/web/command-injection/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.