CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

ldapi

LDAP injection — auth bypass via filter manipulation, blind data extraction, search filter abuse, DN injection.

Quality

80%

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/exploit/web/ldapi/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 dense, well-organized attack reference with concrete payloads, an executable PoC, severity ratings, and remediation guidance — strong on token efficiency and actionability. The main gaps are the pseudocode blind-extraction snippet and the lack of explicit technique-ordering/error-recovery guidance.

Suggestions

Make the blind-extraction example executable by showing the actual request (e.g., an ldapsearch or requests call) instead of the undefined `response` variable.

Add a short note on error-recovery paths, e.g., what to try when wildcard payloads are escaped or the bind fails, to close the workflow validation gap.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and dense: a two-line syntax primer, terse payload comments ("→ matches first user, often admin"), and short sections that each earn their place. No general-concept padding or verbosity to trim, matching the top anchor.

5 / 5

Actionability

Most guidance is executable — exact payloads ("*", "admin)((|(uid=*"), a copy-paste curl PoC, and concrete defender code with escape_filter_chars. Falls short of 5 because the blind-extraction block is pseudocode: `if "found" in response` references an undefined response with no actual request code.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear implicit sequence (spot filter concatenation → attempt bypass → verify via curl PoC / ldapsearch) with verification checkpoints and a probe-response feedback loop in blind extraction. Not 5 because technique ordering is implicit and there is no error-recovery guidance (e.g., what to try when wildcards are escaped).

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and the ~75-line body is appropriately self-contained with clear section headers and well-signaled, one-level cross-references. Not 5 because the body exceeds the 50-line simple-skill threshold and the cross-referenced paths (skills/_corpus/..., skills/ad/SKILL.md) point outside the skill bundle, making navigation unverifiable.

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 concise, domain-specific description that clearly names the capability (LDAP injection) and its concrete technique classes. Its main weakness is the absence of any "when to use" trigger guidance in the description field itself, which limits discoverability.

Suggestions

Append a 'Use when...' clause to the description, e.g. 'Use when testing LDAP-backed authentication, Active Directory logins, or apps that build LDAP search filters from user input.'

Replace the vague 'search filter abuse' with a concrete technique (e.g. 'filter wildcard matching') to remove redundancy with 'filter manipulation'.

Add common synonyms such as 'Active Directory' or 'directory service' to broaden natural trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists several concrete capability areas — "auth bypass via filter manipulation", "blind data extraction", "DN injection" — which matches the anchor for several specific actions with minor gaps. It falls short of comprehensive (5) because "search filter abuse" is vague and redundant with "filter manipulation", and no detection or remediation scope is mentioned.

4 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear (four named LDAP injection technique classes), but the description contains no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. A metadata.when_to_use field exists but is outside the description field being evaluated.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms a user would say are present ("LDAP injection", "auth bypass", "DN"), giving good keyword coverage. Not 5 because common variations and synonyms such as "Active Directory", "directory service", or "login bypass" are missing from the description field.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"LDAP injection" is a clear niche with distinct, unambiguous triggers — it is unlikely to fire for SQL injection, command injection, or generic Active Directory skills. Minimal conflict risk matches the top anchor.

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.

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/ldapi/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.