sql-injection-detector
Sql Injection Detector - Auto-activating skill for Security Fundamentals. Triggers on: sql injection detector, sql injection detector Part of the Security Fundamentals skill category.
35
3%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
94%
0.98xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./planned-skills/generated/03-security-fundamentals/sql-injection-detector/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
7%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 description is essentially a title and category label with no substantive content. It fails to describe any concrete actions, lacks natural trigger terms users would use, and provides no guidance on when Claude should select this skill. It reads like auto-generated boilerplate rather than a useful skill description.
Suggestions
Add concrete actions describing what the skill does, e.g., 'Scans code for SQL injection vulnerabilities, identifies unsanitized user inputs, recommends parameterized queries and prepared statements.'
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about SQL injection, SQLi vulnerabilities, input sanitization, database security, or parameterized queries.'
Remove the redundant duplicate trigger term ('sql injection detector' listed twice) and expand with varied natural language terms users might actually say, such as 'SQL security', 'database attack prevention', or 'query sanitization'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names the domain ('SQL Injection Detector') but provides no concrete actions. It does not describe what the skill actually does—no mention of scanning, detecting, sanitizing, reporting, or any specific capabilities. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description fails to answer both 'what does this do' and 'when should Claude use it'. There is no explanation of capabilities and no explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The only trigger terms listed are 'sql injection detector' repeated twice. It misses natural user phrases like 'SQL injection', 'SQLi', 'input sanitization', 'parameterized queries', 'security vulnerability', or 'database attack'. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The term 'SQL Injection Detector' is somewhat specific to a niche (SQL injection security), which reduces conflict with unrelated skills. However, the vague 'Security Fundamentals' category and lack of concrete scope could overlap with other security-related skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
0%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is an empty template/placeholder with no actual instructional content about SQL injection detection. It contains no code, no detection patterns, no examples of vulnerable vs. safe code, and no concrete guidance whatsoever. It fails on every dimension because it describes a skill rather than being one.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable code examples showing SQL injection detection—e.g., regex patterns for common payloads, parameterized query examples vs. vulnerable string concatenation, and a simple scanner function.
Define a clear workflow: 1) Identify user input entry points, 2) Check for parameterized queries, 3) Scan for string concatenation patterns, 4) Validate with test payloads, 5) Report findings—with validation checkpoints at each step.
Include specific OWASP references and common SQL injection patterns (e.g., `' OR 1=1 --`, union-based, blind injection) as actionable detection targets rather than vague mentions of 'best practices'.
Remove all boilerplate sections (When to Use, Example Triggers, Capabilities) that merely restate the title, and replace them with actual technical content that teaches Claude how to detect SQL injection vulnerabilities.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is entirely filler and boilerplate. It explains what the skill does in vague, repetitive terms without providing any actual technical content about SQL injection detection. Every section restates the same information in different words. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | There is zero concrete guidance—no code examples, no detection patterns, no specific SQL injection payloads to check for, no parameterized query examples, no validation logic. It only describes what it could do rather than instructing how to do it. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No workflow, steps, or process is defined. For a security skill involving input validation and vulnerability detection, there should be clear detection steps, validation checkpoints, and remediation guidance—none of which are present. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a flat, monolithic placeholder with no meaningful structure. Sections like 'Capabilities' and 'Example Triggers' contain no actionable content. There are no references to supporting files, OWASP resources, or detailed guides. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Commit
13d35b8
- 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.