anti-reversing-techniques

AUTHORIZED USE ONLY: This skill contains dual-use security techniques. Before proceeding with any bypass or analysis: > 1.

Quality

29%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/anti-reversing-techniques/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is anti-reversing-techniques in rmyndharis/antigravity-skills

Quality

Content

50%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.

The body is well-structured and concise with clear use/do-not-use and safety sections, but it is largely a high-level scaffold: instructions are vague and non-executable, and the sole detailed reference points to a file that is absent from the bundle.

Suggestions

Add concrete, executable guidance — at minimum a few specific commands or techniques (e.g. named tools, debugger flags, or analysis steps) rather than deferring entirely to the external playbook.

Provide or create the referenced `resources/implementation-playbook.md` so the one-level-deep reference resolves to a real file, or remove the dangling reference.

Insert explicit validation/checkpoint steps into the workflow (e.g. 'confirm scope before each bypass attempt; halt if authorization cannot be re-verified') to lift workflow clarity above the no-validation floor.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — short bullet lists and a brief instruction sequence with no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows, with only minor repetition between the top authorization notice and the 'Do not use' section.	4 / 5
Actionability	Instructions are high-level hints ('Identify protection mechanisms and choose safe analysis methods', 'Document findings and avoid modifying artifacts unnecessarily') with no concrete commands, code, or specific techniques, deferring all detail to an external playbook.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A coherent 4-step sequence exists (confirm authorization, identify mechanisms, document, recommend) but there are no validation checkpoints, error-recovery loops, or feedback steps for the risky bypass operations.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are well-organized and the body signals a one-level-deep reference to implementation-playbook.md, but the referenced `resources/` path does not exist in the bundle, so the reference is broken despite being clearly labeled.	3 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Description

8%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.

The description is effectively a truncated legal/safety disclaimer rather than a capability description: it names the security domain but states no concrete actions, no natural trigger terms, and neither a clear 'what' nor 'when'. It reads as if cut off mid-sentence ('...analysis: > 1.'), which compounds the lack of useful trigger guidance.

Suggestions

Rewrite the description to lead with concrete capabilities (e.g. 'Analyzes anti-debugging and obfuscation mechanisms in protected binaries') instead of opening with the authorization warning.

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms a user would say (e.g. 'Use when performing authorized malware analysis, reverse engineering protected binaries, or studying anti-reversing techniques').

Move the safety/legal notice into the body and keep the frontmatter description focused on what the skill does and when to invoke it.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('dual-use security techniques', 'bypass or analysis') but lists no concrete capabilities — it reads as a safety disclaimer rather than a capability statement, fitting the 'names the domain but actions are minimal' anchor.	2 / 5
Completeness	The description is a truncated authorization warning that answers neither 'what does this do' nor 'when should Claude use it', matching the 'missing both what and when' anchor.	1 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Only technical jargon ('dual-use security techniques', 'bypass or analysis') appears; none of the natural phrases a user would actually say when they need this skill, matching the 'no natural keywords; only technical jargon' anchor.	1 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'dual-use security techniques' and 'bypass or analysis' are very broad and would overlap with many security skills, fitting the 'very broad; high overlap risk' anchor.	2 / 5
	Total	6 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

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

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
Path: plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/anti-reversing-techniques/SKILL.md
Commit: 900c504

Reviewed: 4 hours ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.