CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

mobile-security

Mobile application security reconnaissance — APK/IPA analysis, permission enumeration, certificate validation, hardcoded secret detection, insecure storage identification, network security analysis.

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/standard/recon/mobile-security/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

68%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 command catalog for mobile security reconnaissance that stays terse and assumes Claude's competence. Its weaknesses are the absence of a sequenced analysis workflow with validation/triage checkpoints, and a couple of commands that are slightly inaccurate or reference tools (openssl, yara) never demonstrated.

Suggestions

Add an explicit workflow ordering the sections (e.g., extract package info → decompile → scan manifest/config → grep for secrets and insecure storage → triage findings), since the current smali/ greps silently presume a prior apktool decompile.

Include a findings-triage step — e.g., distinguishing real AWS keys from false positives when grepping strings output — to give the recon process validation checkpoints.

Fix or demonstrate the tools listed without usage (openssl, yara) and correct commands that treat an .ipa as a directory ('plutil -p {ipa_path}/Payload/*.app/Info.plist' needs an extracted Payload first).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is a lean command catalog that assumes Claude's competence — no explanations of what APKs, certificates, or SharedPreferences are. Minor trimmable padding exists: the meta-sentence 'This skill enables autonomous agents to analyze mobile applications for security issues' and repeated `strings` usage across sections 2 and 4. Matches the score-4 anchor (efficient, minor instances that could be trimmed), not 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

Predominantly concrete, executable bash commands with parameterized paths (e.g., 'apktool d {apk_path} -o output_dir', 'grep -E "(AKIA|ASIA)[0-9A-Z]{16,}" strings_output.txt'). Minor gaps keep it below 5: 'openssl' and 'yara' appear in the tools table with no usage shown, and 'plutil -p {ipa_path}/Payload/*.app/Info.plist' treats an .ipa archive as a directory rather than an extracted payload.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The body is organized as ten parallel reference sections rather than a sequenced analysis workflow — ordering is only implicit (the smali/ greps presume a prior apktool decompile) and there are no validation or triage checkpoints (e.g., confirming grep hits are not false positives). Matches the score-3 anchor (sequence present but implicit, checkpoints missing); not 4, which requires most checkpoints present. Operations are read-only, so the destructive/batch cap does not apply.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized numbered sections with clear headers and a tools summary table make the ~6KB catalog easy to navigate, with everything one level deep in SKILL.md (no bundle files exist, so nothing is nested or buried). Matches the score-4 anchor (good structure, most content appropriately placed, minor organization gaps — Android/iOS detail could arguably live in references/); not 3 since navigation is easy and no reference is unclear.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

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 strong, specific description that names six concrete capabilities in third-person voice within a clear niche. Its main weakness is the missing 'Use when...' trigger clause — the when-guidance lives in metadata.when_to_use rather than the description field itself — and some natural trigger terms (Android, iOS, .apk/.ipa) are absent.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause to the description, e.g. 'Use when analyzing Android APKs or iOS IPAs for security issues, or when the user mentions mobile app security, certificates, hardcoded secrets, or insecure storage.'

Add natural trigger terms and file extensions to the description — 'Android', 'iOS', '.apk', '.ipa', 'reverse engineering' — so it matches the vocabulary users actually say.

Consider merging the strong trigger terms already present in metadata.when_to_use into the description field so both what and when are discoverable from the description alone.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description enumerates six concrete action areas — 'APK/IPA analysis, permission enumeration, certificate validation, hardcoded secret detection, insecure storage identification, network security analysis' — providing comprehensive coverage of the mobile recon domain in third-person voice. This matches the score-5 anchor (multiple specific concrete actions, comprehensive coverage) rather than 4, which expects minor gaps.

5 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clearly answered with six concrete capabilities, but the description field contains no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which the rubric guideline caps at 3. Score 4 requires both what and when with an explicit 'when'.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural keywords like 'APK', 'IPA', 'hardcoded secrets', 'insecure storage', and 'network security' would be said by users needing this skill, but common variations are missing: 'Android', 'iOS', '.apk'/'.ipa' extensions, and 'reverse engineering'. Good coverage with a few natural terms missing matches the score-4 anchor, not 5 which requires synonyms and file extensions.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The mobile-application-security-recon niche anchored by APK/IPA artifacts and specific checks (certificate validation, hardcoded secrets, insecure storage) is clearly distinguishable from generic security or static-analysis skills, with minimal conflict risk — matching the score-5 anchor.

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/recon/mobile-security/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.