senior-security
Security engineering toolkit for threat modeling, vulnerability analysis, secure architecture, and penetration testing. Includes STRIDE analysis, OWASP guidance, cryptography patterns, and security scanning tools.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:alirezarezvani/claude-skills --skill senior-security80
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillAgent success when using this skill
Validation for skill structure
Discovery
82%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a strong description with excellent specificity and domain-relevant trigger terms that security professionals would naturally use. The main weakness is the absence of an explicit 'Use when...' clause, which would help Claude know exactly when to select this skill over others. Adding trigger guidance would elevate this from good to excellent.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause with trigger scenarios like 'Use when the user asks about security reviews, threat analysis, vulnerability assessments, or secure coding practices'
Consider adding file type triggers if applicable (e.g., 'security audit reports', 'architecture diagrams for security review')
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'threat modeling, vulnerability analysis, secure architecture, and penetration testing' plus specific methodologies like 'STRIDE analysis, OWASP guidance, cryptography patterns, and security scanning tools'. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers 'what does this do' with specific capabilities, but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance explaining when Claude should select this skill. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes natural keywords users would say: 'threat modeling', 'vulnerability', 'penetration testing', 'STRIDE', 'OWASP', 'cryptography', 'security scanning' - these are terms security professionals naturally use. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clear security engineering niche with distinct triggers like 'STRIDE', 'OWASP', 'penetration testing', 'threat modeling' - unlikely to conflict with general coding or documentation skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
70%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured security engineering skill with excellent workflow clarity and progressive disclosure. The main weaknesses are moderate verbosity and lack of executable code examples - the skill describes security patterns and tools but doesn't provide copy-paste ready code demonstrating secure implementations. The reference tables and checklists are valuable but some content (like basic STRIDE definitions) could be trimmed.
Suggestions
Add executable code examples for secure patterns (e.g., parameterized SQL queries, proper password hashing with Argon2id, secure session configuration)
Replace the 'Secure vs Insecure Patterns' descriptions with actual before/after code snippets showing the vulnerability and fix
Trim redundant STRIDE explanations - define once in the reference section and link to it rather than repeating
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably efficient with tables and structured content, but includes some redundancy (e.g., STRIDE explained multiple times, verbose workflow descriptions). Some sections like the compliance frameworks table add reference value but could be trimmed. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides structured workflows and checklists but lacks executable code examples. The 'Secure vs Insecure Patterns' section describes issues without showing actual code. Script references exist but no inline executable examples demonstrate the security patterns. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Each workflow has clear numbered steps with explicit validation checkpoints at the end. The incident response workflow includes proper feedback loops (contain -> eradicate -> recover -> verify). Multi-step processes are well-sequenced with clear decision points. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Excellent structure with clear table of contents, well-organized sections, and one-level-deep references to detailed guides (threat-modeling-guide.md, security-architecture-patterns.md, cryptography-implementation.md). Content is appropriately split between overview and reference materials. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- 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.