CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

security-review

Threat-model-driven security review of a change, feature, or subsystem. Runs a STRIDE-style pass (Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Info disclosure, Denial of service, Elevation of privilege), examines the actual code, and produces a filing-ready report with severity, exploit scenario, and concrete remediation. Use when asked to "security review", "threat model", "check for vulnerabilities", "audit this for security", "secure this", or before shipping any change that touches auth, input handling, data access, or external surfaces.

77

Quality

96%

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

92%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A well-sequenced, highly actionable read-only review process with a worked example and explicit success criteria; the only weakness is progressive disclosure — everything lives inline in a single long file with no use of reference files.

Suggestions

Move the per-category STRIDE question lists and the full report template into reference files (e.g. references/stride-checklist.md, references/report-template.md) and link to them from SKILL.md so the main file stays a lean overview that progressively discloses detail.

Consolidate <anti_patterns> with <core_principle>: three of the six anti-patterns (generic checklists, modifying code during review, hypothetical exploits) restate core principles — keep only the net-new items to tighten token use.

Add an in-process validation gate after Step 5 Triage — e.g. confirm every finding has a file:line citation and a concrete exploit scenario before writing the report — turning the terminal success_criteria into a checkpoint within the workflow.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence (it does not explain STRIDE, OWASP, or injection); sectioned structure and the worked report example earn their place. Minor reinforcement between <core_principle> and <anti_patterns> keeps it just under the verbose threshold rather than pushing into a 2.

3 / 3

Actionability

Provides concrete per-category STRIDE questions, a listed OWASP pattern set, explicit triage fields (Severity/Exploitability/Business impact), and a copy-paste-ready report template with a fully worked SQL-injection finding citing file:line — strongly actionable guidance for an instruction-only skill.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A clear 7-step sequence (Scope → Attack surface → STRIDE → OWASP → Triage → Report → Follow-ups) with explicit checkpoints (clarifying-question limit, explicit confirmation before filing, terminal success_criteria checklist). The read-only nature means no fix-retry loop is required, so the destructive-operation cap does not apply.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is well-organized into sections but is a ~175-line monolithic SKILL.md with no reference/bundle files at all; the detailed per-category STRIDE question lists, OWASP checklist, and full report template are candidates to split out and link to, matching the "some structure but content that could be separate is inline" anchor.

2 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

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.

The description is third-person, concise, and complete: it states concrete capabilities, gives an explicit "Use when..." trigger list of natural user phrases, and carves out a distinct niche from general review. It hits the top anchor on every dimension.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names multiple concrete actions — "Runs a STRIDE-style pass", "examines the actual code", "produces a filing-ready report with severity, exploit scenario, and concrete remediation" — matching the anchor for listing several specific concrete actions.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers what the skill does and when to use it via an explicit "Use when..." clause, satisfying the highest anchor for both what AND when.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Covers natural phrases users actually say ("security review", "threat model", "check for vulnerabilities", "audit this for security", "secure this") plus situational triggers (auth, input handling, data access, external surfaces).

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche (threat-model-driven security review) with distinct triggers and explicit boundaries, unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
gsd-build/gsd-2
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.