CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

security-hardening

Audits, hardens, and remediates security vulnerabilities across web applications, APIs, and server environments. Use when implementing OWASP Top 10 defenses, HTTP security headers (CSP, HSTS), input validation, parameterized queries, authentication and session security, secrets management, file upload safety, rate limiting, dependency auditing, or baseline Linux server hardening.

65

Quality

82%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

67%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 highly actionable, well-structured body with concrete code for each OWASP defense area and a genuine verification section. Its main weaknesses are conceptual padding that Claude doesn't need, and a monolithic inline structure that keeps nearly all detail in SKILL.md rather than distributing it across the references directory.

Suggestions

Trim concept explanations Claude already knows (the defense-in-depth intro paragraph, the XSS and HTTP-header definitions) to lead each step with its actionable config or code.

Split long per-topic code blocks (Express/Nginx header configs, Linux host hardening, logging) into files under references/, keeping SKILL.md as a sequenced overview with short key snippets — mirroring the existing owasp-checklist.md pattern.

Add explicit error-recovery guidance to the Verification section (e.g. 'if a header check fails, re-run the middleware config step'), and replace stub helpers like saveToPrivateStorage with concrete storage examples so code is copy-paste runnable.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body pads with concepts Claude already knows: an opening definition ("Security hardening is a defense-in-depth discipline designed to eliminate attack surfaces..."), "XSS occurs when malicious scripts are rendered in a browser without sanitization", and "HTTP headers instruct modern browsers to enforce sandbox boundaries". The code blocks are dense and earn their place, but these textbook explanations and the ~465-line length mean it fits anchor 3 ('mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation') better than anchor 4's 'minor instances'.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, library-specific, near-copy-paste guidance throughout: helmet CSP with per-request nonces, argon2id hashing parameters, multer with magic-byte validation, express-rate-limit configs, an SSRF IP-range blocklist, and runnable verification commands with expected outcomes. Falls short of anchor 5 only due to minor gaps — undefined helper functions like `saveToPrivateStorage(safeFilename, req.file.buffer)` and `authenticateUser(...)` that are not executable as-is.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Eleven clearly sequenced, numbered steps plus a dedicated Verification section with concrete checkpoints (curl header grep, the 6th-request-returns-429 rate-limit test, `sudo ufw status verbose`). Not anchor 5 because there are no explicit error-recovery loops — nothing instructs what to do when a verification check fails — while validation checkpoints themselves are concrete, keeping it above anchor 3.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure with clear section headers, and the comprehensive checklist is correctly delegated to a real, one-level-deep, clearly-signaled reference ([OWASP Top 10 Audit Checklist](references/owasp-checklist.md), verified to exist). Not anchor 5 because most detail — full Express/Nginx header configs, host hardening, logging setup — is inlined in a ~465-line SKILL.md where additional splitting into references would improve navigation.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

88%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 description that follows best practices: third-person voice, concrete capability enumeration, and an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause. Trigger coverage is good but omits several natural attack-name phrasings (SQLi, XSS, pentest vocabulary) that users commonly say, and the broad audit framing carries minor overlap risk with general review skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions ("Audits, hardens, and remediates security vulnerabilities") and enumerates specific capabilities ("HTTP security headers (CSP, HSTS)", "parameterized queries", "secrets management", "rate limiting", "baseline Linux server hardening") with comprehensive coverage. It clearly matches the anchor-5 example rather than anchor 4, which requires 'minor gaps in coverage' — none are evident here.

5 / 5

Completeness

Clearly answers 'what' ("Audits, hardens, and remediates security vulnerabilities across web applications, APIs, and server environments") and 'when' with an explicit "Use when implementing..." clause listing concrete trigger scenarios, matching the anchor-5 example pattern. Not 4, because the when-clause is explicit and specific rather than merely present.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good coverage of natural trigger terms users would say: "OWASP Top 10", "security headers", "rate limiting", "secrets management", "Linux server hardening", "file upload safety". A few common natural phrasings are missing (e.g. 'SQL injection', 'XSS', 'vulnerability scan', 'penetration test'), which fits anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive synonym coverage of anchor 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear security-hardening niche with distinct triggers (OWASP Top 10, CSP/HSTS, server hardening), but the broad framing "audits... vulnerabilities across web applications, APIs, and server environments" creates minor overlap risk with general code-review or security-review skills. Fits anchor 4 ('mostly distinct; minor overlap risk') rather than anchor 5's minimal conflict risk.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

administrakt0r/pro-skills-repo-administraktor

Path

skills/security-skills/security-hardening/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.