CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

auditing-gcp-iam-permissions

Auditing Google Cloud Platform IAM permissions to identify overly permissive bindings, primitive role usage, service account key proliferation, and cross-project access risks using gcloud CLI, Policy Analyzer, and IAM Recommender.

60

Quality

70%

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 ./skills/auditing-gcp-iam-permissions/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

65%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 is highly actionable with comprehensive executable commands and a clear step sequence, but it lacks validation checkpoints around its destructive remediation step and fails to link the bundle files it ships. Tightening the explanatory sections and signaling the references would raise its score.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation checkpoint before and after Step 6 remediation (e.g. re-run the binding enumeration to confirm the primitive role was removed and verify no access-denied errors before deleting keys).

Link the existing bundle files from the body, e.g. a '## Programmatic API' section pointing to references/api-reference.md and a note on scripts/agent.py, so the references are not orphaned.

Move the full report template and/or the Common Scenarios walkthrough into a separate reference file to slim the main body.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dominated by executable commands that earn their place, but the Key Concepts table and the full report template explain concepts Claude largely already knows and could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

Every step provides copy-paste ready gcloud commands and inline Python covering the common audit cases (primitive role detection, key listing, recommender, policy analysis, remediation).

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Six steps are clearly sequenced, but Step 6 performs destructive/batch operations (remove-iam-policy-binding, delete keys, disable SAs) with no validation or verification checkpoint, so workflow clarity is capped at 3.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Section structure is reasonable, but the provided bundle files (references/api-reference.md, scripts/agent.py) are never referenced from the body, and the full output-format template and scenario could live in separate files.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

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 specific, well-scoped, and distinct, but omits any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance, which caps completeness. Adding a 'Use when...' clause would lift it into the top tier.

Suggestions

Append a 'Use when...' clause with concrete trigger phrases (e.g. 'Use when auditing GCP IAM bindings, reviewing service account keys, or scoping down permissions to least privilege').

Add common synonyms users say, such as 'least privilege', 'role review', or 'IAM audit', to broaden trigger term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions ('identify overly permissive bindings, primitive role usage, service account key proliferation, and cross-project access risks') and names the toolchain (gcloud CLI, Policy Analyzer, IAM Recommender), giving comprehensive coverage.

5 / 5

Completeness

A clear 'what' is present but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, so per the rubric completeness is capped at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Strong natural keyword coverage ('IAM permissions', 'primitive role usage', 'service account key proliferation', 'gcloud CLI'), but a few common variants a user might say ('least privilege', 'role review', 'IAM audit') are absent.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clearly scoped niche (GCP IAM auditing via named services) with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk with other skills.

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.

Validation15 / 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
mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills
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.