CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

cc-skill-security-review

This skill guides review of security practices and potential vulnerabilities; no checklist ensures all code is secure. Use when implementing authentication or authorization, handling user input or file uploads, or creating new API endpoints.

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/cc-skill-security-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

57%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 delivers strong, concrete, mostly executable guidance across ten security domains, with per-section verification checkboxes and illustrative tests. Its weaknesses are the inverted progressive-disclosure structure (the detailed material lives in SKILL.md while the reference file duplicates a condensed version), the absence of a sequenced review workflow with failure-handling loops, and length that could be substantially trimmed.

Suggestions

Move the ten detailed checklist sections (code examples and verification steps) into references/detailed-guide.md and keep SKILL.md as a concise overview with a clearly signaled link, so the reference genuinely 'retains the complete procedure' as the body claims.

Add an explicit sequenced workflow for conducting a review (e.g., 1. read the guide, 2. evaluate each applicable category, 3. run the automated tests, 4. report findings), including a feedback loop for what to do when a verification check fails.

Trim redundant content: remove the verbatim repetition of the description in the intro line and collapse paired examples (the two rate-limiter snippets and the JWT/session-cookie pair) into one each, which would also raise conciseness.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~470-line body inlines ten full checklist sections with paired code examples (two rate-limiter snippets, JWT plus session-cookie variants), and the opening line repeats the description verbatim. There is no basic-concept padding, but the body is far more than a minor trim away from lean, fitting 'mostly efficient but could be tightened'.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, largely executable TypeScript, SQL, and bash throughout (zod validation, upload checks, parameterized queries, RLS policies, npm audit commands), with minor gaps: `@/lib/csrf`, `expectedRecipient`, `maxAmount`, and `getBalance` are undefined helpers that keep some snippets from being copy-paste ready.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The content is organized as parallel checklist categories rather than a sequenced review procedure: per-section Verification Steps provide real checkpoints, but there is no explicit order across the ten categories and no 'check fails -> fix -> re-verify' feedback loop, so the sequence remains implicit.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

references/detailed-guide.md exists, is linked at the top, is one level deep, and is clearly signaled — but the split is inverted: the body claims the guide 'retains the complete procedure and reference material' while the actual guide holds only a condensed checklist, leaving the bulk of the detailed material inlined in SKILL.md.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

70%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 solid: it states a purpose, includes an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger phrases, and occupies a mostly distinct security niche. Its main weakness is a vague 'what' — 'guides review' — that never names the concrete checks or activities the skill performs, and it omits several trigger terms (secrets, credentials, payments) that the body itself lists.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"guides review of security practices and potential vulnerabilities" names the domain and 1-2 actions, but the action verb is generic and no concrete review activities (e.g., auditing for injection, verifying secrets handling) are listed, matching the 'domain + 1-2 actions, not comprehensive' anchor rather than the several-specific-actions anchor.

3 / 5

Completeness

Both parts are present: a 'what' ("guides review of security practices and potential vulnerabilities") and an explicit 'Use when...' clause with concrete triggers. Not 5 because the 'what' is a single generic capability rather than a list of concrete capabilities.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers like "implementing authentication or authorization", "handling user input or file uploads", and "creating new API endpoints" are natural user phrasings, but common variants the body itself covers (secrets, credentials, payment features, sensitive data) are missing from the description.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The security-review niche is clear, but triggers such as "creating new API endpoints" and "handling user input" are broad enough to fire on ordinary development tasks where a general API or forms skill would fit better, giving minor overlap risk rather than a fully distinct trigger set.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

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

sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills

Path

skills/cc-skill-security-review/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.