cloud-audit
Audit cloud infrastructure (AWS, GCP, Azure) for misconfigurations, excessive permissions, and security gaps. Use when the user mentions 'cloud security,' 'cloud audit,' 'AWS security,' 'GCP security,' 'Azure security,' 'IAM audit,' 'S3 bucket,' 'cloud misconfiguration,' 'cloud hardening,' or needs to review cloud infrastructure security.
68
82%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Risky
Do not use without reviewing
Quality
Discovery
100%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 skill description that clearly defines its scope (cloud infrastructure security auditing across AWS, GCP, and Azure), lists specific actions (auditing misconfigurations, excessive permissions, security gaps), and provides an explicit and comprehensive 'Use when' clause with numerous natural trigger terms. It uses proper third-person voice and is well-structured for skill selection among many options.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'audit cloud infrastructure,' 'misconfigurations,' 'excessive permissions,' and 'security gaps,' along with naming three specific cloud providers (AWS, GCP, Azure). | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (audit cloud infrastructure for misconfigurations, excessive permissions, and security gaps) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when...' clause with a comprehensive list of trigger terms and a general fallback condition). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms users would say: 'cloud security,' 'cloud audit,' 'AWS security,' 'GCP security,' 'Azure security,' 'IAM audit,' 'S3 bucket,' 'cloud misconfiguration,' 'cloud hardening.' These are terms users would naturally use when seeking this kind of help. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clearly scoped to cloud infrastructure security auditing across specific providers, with distinct triggers like 'IAM audit,' 'S3 bucket,' and 'cloud misconfiguration' that are unlikely to conflict with general security or non-cloud skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
64%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a solid, actionable cloud security audit skill with concrete CLI commands across three major providers and a well-structured output template. Its main weaknesses are the lack of explicit validation/feedback loops in the workflow (e.g., verifying access, handling command failures) and the monolithic structure that could benefit from splitting provider-specific details into separate files. The content is mostly concise but could trim some obvious security knowledge that Claude already possesses.
Suggestions
Add explicit validation checkpoints: verify CLI access/authentication before starting, handle command failures gracefully, and include a review cycle for findings before finalizing the report.
Split provider-specific audit details (AWS, GCP, Azure) into separate reference files to improve progressive disclosure and reduce the main skill's token footprint.
Trim 'Check for' lists to only non-obvious or project-specific items — Claude already knows that wildcard permissions and public buckets are risky.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient with concrete commands and checklists, but includes some unnecessary elaboration (e.g., the 'Check for:' bullet lists sometimes state obvious security concerns Claude would already know, and the GCP/Azure storage section is vague filler). The cross-references paragraph at the top is useful but slightly verbose. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable CLI commands for AWS, GCP, and Azure across multiple audit categories. The output format template is copy-paste ready, and specific checks (e.g., IMDSv2, wildcard permissions, public access blocks) give Claude concrete things to look for and report on. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The skill starts with scoping and proceeds through audit categories to output format, which is a reasonable sequence. However, there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops — for instance, no step to verify CLI access works before proceeding, no guidance on what to do if a command fails or access is denied, and no iterative review cycle for findings. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references other skills (iam-audit, container-audit, secrets-audit, owasp-audit) which is good cross-referencing, but all audit content is inline in a single file with no bundle files to offload detailed per-provider or per-category guidance. The provider-specific sections could benefit from being split into separate reference files, especially given the file's length. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 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 |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- briiirussell/cybersecurity-skills
- Commit
c9ade03
- 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.