CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

security-audit

Security guidance and vulnerability review for codebases, APIs, services, CLI tools, libraries, and daemons. Use for security questions, focused reviews, vulnerability research, security audits, or pen tests. Run the complete workflow only for explicit codebase audit or pen-test requests, full/comprehensive/end-to-end reviews, or requested report artifacts.

Quality

78%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/security-audit/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

66%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 skill body is a well-sequenced, validation-heavy workflow with strong checkpoints, but it is long, lacks executable code, and critically references four companion .md files that are absent from the bundle. Fixing the missing references and trimming inlined detail would lift conciseness and progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Provide the referenced companion files (RECONNAISSANCE.md, HUNTING.md, ATTACK-CLASSES.md, VALIDATION-AND-REPORTING.md) or inline their essential mechanics so navigation is not broken.

Move the detailed budget-gating and prior-run reconciliation steps into a companion file and keep a concise summary in SKILL.md to improve conciseness.

Add at least one concrete executable example (e.g. a sample validate-findings.cjs invocation or findings.json skeleton) so the guidance is copy-paste actionable rather than instruction-only.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient and dense with substantive rules, but it is quite long and includes some elaborated explanatory prose (e.g. the multi-paragraph budget gating and prior-run reconciliation) that could be tightened or moved to referenced files.

3 / 5

Actionability

It gives concrete procedural rules and named output files, but contains no executable code or commands and defers nearly all executable mechanics (validator invocations, ledger formats) to referenced files that are not present, leaving guidance at the instruction rather than copy-paste level.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The six-phase workflow is explicitly numbered and sequenced with clear validation checkpoints (schema validation, validate-findings.cjs, validate-coverage-ledger.cjs, two terminal states) and feedback loops for budget exhaustion and incomplete runs.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

It signals one-level-deep references to four .md files (RECONNAISSANCE.md, HUNTING.md, ATTACK-CLASSES.md, VALIDATION-AND-REPORTING.md), but none of these bundle files exist in references/, scripts/, or assets/, so the navigation points to missing material and the core file is overloaded with inlined detail.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

81%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 strong: it clearly states what the skill does and when to use it with concrete trigger phrases, and it occupies a distinct security-audit niche. It could push higher by replacing slightly abstract phrasing with a few more concrete action verbs.

Suggestions

Consider leading with concrete verbs ('Find vulnerabilities, triage findings, produce a security report') before the domain nouns to sharpen specificity.

Add a few natural trigger synonyms users say (e.g. 'security review', 'threat review', 'find security bugs') to broaden trigger coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names concrete capabilities (vulnerability review, security audits, pen tests) and target classes (codebases, APIs, services, CLI tools, libraries, daemons), but the actions are somewhat high-level rather than enumerating specific concrete operations like 'find vulnerabilities' or 'produce a findings report'.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' (security guidance and vulnerability review for named target types) and 'when' ('Use for security questions, focused reviews, vulnerability research, security audits, or pen tests' plus an explicit full-workflow trigger clause).

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Strong natural trigger phrases ('security questions', 'security audits', 'pen tests', 'vulnerability research') that users would naturally say, with good coverage; a few common synonyms or related phrasings are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The security-audit niche is clearly distinguishable with distinct triggers, though it has minor overlap risk with general code-review or security-review skills that touch adjacent territory.

4 / 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

relative_links

Relative link issues: 8 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

cloudflare/security-audit-skill

Path

skills/security-audit/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.