CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

moai-ref-supply-chain

Software supply-chain defensive security reference: SBOM generation and verification (SPDX / CycloneDX), dependency-confusion defense, malicious-package triage playbook, SLSA provenance levels, Sigstore / cosign signing and verification, package-registry hardening, typosquatting defense, and transitive-dependency auditing. Agent-extending skill that amplifies backend, security, and release-engineering work with production-grade defensive patterns for the software supply chain. NOT for: offensive techniques (dependency-confusion attack execution, malicious package authoring, registry exploitation), LLM/AI-specific security (see moai-ref-llm-security), web-app OWASP Top 10 (see moai-ref-owasp-checklist), or general API design (see moai-ref-api-patterns).

56

Quality

65%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/moai-ref-supply-chain/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

56%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 body is a well-organized, defensively-framed reference with one genuinely strong workflow (the triage playbook) and clear trust-boundary framing. Its weaknesses are verbosity from re-teaching known concepts, a descriptive rather than executable style (tool names instead of commands), and a complete absence of the progressive disclosure its own frontmatter advertises.

Suggestions

Split each major section (SBOM, SLSA, Sigstore, registry hardening, etc.) into one-level-deep reference files under references/ and keep SKILL.md as a concise overview with clearly signaled pointers, honoring the declared progressive_disclosure levels.

Replace tool-name mentions with actual executable command lines (e.g., a syft generation command, a full cosign verify invocation with example values, a pip-audit/npm-audit CI snippet) so guidance is copy-paste ready.

Cut background re-explanations Claude already knows (what an SBOM is, how keyless signing works at length) and keep only the non-obvious defensive practice points.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~300-line body re-explains concepts Claude already knows ('A Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) is the inventory of components in an artifact', the four-step keyless-signing explainer, the SLSA level taxonomy), so while the tables are information-dense rather than padded, there is unnecessary explanation that could be trimmed — matching 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation'.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete tools are named ('syft', 'cosign verify --certificate-identity <expected> --certificate-oidc-issuer <expected> <artifact-ref>', 'pip-audit', 'npm audit', 'cargo audit', 'govulncheck') but almost no copy-paste executable commands or configuration snippets are provided — most sections are control/rationale tables — matching 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details'.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The malicious-package triage playbook gives a numbered five-step sequence with explicit gating ('an unverifiable artifact stays quarantined') and SBOM verification is described as a concrete re-generate-and-diff loop, matching 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present'; it falls short of 5 because several sections (registry hardening, typosquatting defense) list controls without any ordered procedure or error-recovery loop.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and the entire eight-section reference is inlined in SKILL.md despite frontmatter declaring progressive_disclosure enabled with level2_tokens 3000; headers and tables are well organized, but each topical section is exactly the reference material that conventionally belongs in its own one-level-deep file, matching 'some structure but content that should be separate is inline'.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

75%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 highly specific and distinctive, with an unusually good explicit NOT-for boundary section that cleanly separates it from sibling skills. Its one structural weakness is that trigger guidance ('Use when...') is split into a separate when_to_use frontmatter field rather than living in the description itself, which caps completeness.

Suggestions

Fold a condensed 'Use when...' clause into the description field itself (e.g., 'Use when generating or verifying an SBOM, signing or verifying artifacts with Sigstore, or auditing transitive dependencies') so the description is self-contained.

Add a few natural synonyms lay users might say — 'software bill of materials', 'artifact signing', 'dependency lockfile/hygiene' — to broaden trigger coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description enumerates multiple concrete capabilities — 'SBOM generation and verification (SPDX / CycloneDX)', 'dependency-confusion defense', 'malicious-package triage playbook', 'SLSA provenance levels', 'Sigstore / cosign signing and verification', 'package-registry hardening', 'typosquatting defense', and 'transitive-dependency auditing' — giving comprehensive coverage with no minor gaps, matching the top anchor.

5 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear and comprehensive, but the description field itself contains no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance — that lives in the separate when_to_use field outside the evaluation target — so per the rubric guideline completeness is capped at 3 ('clear what but when is missing or only weakly implied').

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Strong natural keywords a practitioner would actually say — 'SBOM', 'dependency confusion', 'typosquatting', 'SLSA', 'Sigstore / cosign', 'provenance', 'supply chain' — but a few common synonyms and phrasings ('software bill of materials' spelled out, 'artifact signing', 'lockfile') are missing, so it fits 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' rather than the comprehensive 5 anchor.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

An explicit negative boundary ('NOT for: offensive techniques..., LLM/AI-specific security (see moai-ref-llm-security), web-app OWASP Top 10..., or general API design') plus cross-references to sibling skills establishes a clear niche with minimal conflict risk, matching the 5 anchor rather than the 'minor overlap risk' 4 anchor.

5 / 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

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
modu-ai/moai-adk
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.