CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

cloud-penetration-testing

Conduct comprehensive security assessments of cloud infrastructure across Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Services (AWS), and Google Cloud Platform (GCP).

Quality

63%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Medium

Suggest reviewing before use

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/cloud-penetration-testing/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

61%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 well-structured as an overview with concrete executable examples and unusually strong safety gating, but it carries redundant authorization boilerplate, filler sections, and delegates the actual workflow sequencing to the reference guide without inline checkpoints. The bundle organization is good, with the secondary reference slightly buried.

Suggestions

Collapse the two overlapping 'AUTHORIZED USE ONLY' blockquotes into a single authorization statement to reclaim tokens.

Delete the circular 'When to Use' section and the 'Required Knowledge' list (concepts Claude already knows), or replace them with one line of genuine trigger guidance.

Add a brief numbered phase summary (recon → enumeration → exploitation → reporting) with a validation/verification checkpoint per phase, even though the details live in the detailed guide.

Link references/advanced-cloud-scripts.md directly from SKILL.md so both bundle files are discoverable one level deep.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Most of the body is actionable commands and constraints, but there is measurable padding: the two top blockquotes ('AUTHORIZED USE ONLY' and 'AUTHORIZED USE ONLY: Use this skill only for...') duplicate each other, 'Required Knowledge' lists concepts Claude already knows (IAM, cloud architecture fundamentals), and 'When to Use' is circular filler ('applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview'). Mostly efficient but should be tightened — anchor 3, not 2, since the padded lines are a minority of the file.

3 / 5

Actionability

Examples 2 and 3 give concrete, executable bash (aws s3 enumeration loop; gcloud auth/instance/SSH commands) and the Required Tools section has runnable installers. Mostly executable but with minor gaps: Example 1 (password-policy assessment) contains no command at all, and Example 3 uses unbound placeholders ('instance-name', 'compromised-sa.json', 'target-project') without setup context — anchor 4 rather than 5.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The multi-step assessment workflow (recon → auth testing → enumeration → escalation) is not sequenced in the body — it is delegated to references/detailed-guide.md — and the body's own examples are batch operations (loop over every bucket) without explicit validate/verify checkpoints, capping workflow clarity at 3 per the batch-operation guideline. Not 2 because the mandatory confirmation gate does function as an explicit pre-execution checkpoint and the guide is designated mandatory reading with its own phase structure.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a genuine overview: it moves the full procedure into references/detailed-guide.md (verified to exist) with clear reading instructions ('For focused work, load the relevant sections; for end-to-end work, read the guide completely'). Minor gaps keep it from 5: references/advanced-cloud-scripts.md is not linked from SKILL.md and is only discoverable one level deeper via the guide's index, so references are two levels deep rather than the ideal one.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

48%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 names a clear, distinctive domain (offensive cloud security across Azure, AWS, and GCP) but relies on one generic action verb and omits any 'use when' trigger guidance. It reads as a scope statement rather than an activation description.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with concrete triggers, e.g., 'Use when the user asks for cloud penetration testing, security assessment, or privilege-escalation testing of Azure, AWS, or GCP environments.'

Replace 'comprehensive security assessments' with 2-3 concrete capabilities such as 'enumerate cloud resources, audit IAM policies, test for misconfigured storage, and attempt privilege escalation'.

Include the natural synonyms users actually say — 'pentest', 'penetration testing', 'red team', 'cloud security audit' — alongside the platform names.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Conduct comprehensive security assessments" is a single generic action; the description names the three cloud domains but offers no concrete assessment activities (e.g., enumeration, IAM auditing, misconfiguration discovery). Matches anchor 2 ('names the domain but actions are minimal or generic') rather than 3, which requires 1-2 concrete actions beyond the umbrella verb 'assess'.

2 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is stated (security assessments across Azure, AWS, GCP) but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. It is not 4 because the 'when' is entirely absent rather than merely implicit, and the 'what' is a single umbrella action.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"security assessments", "cloud infrastructure", "Azure", "AWS", "GCP" are relevant keywords, but the most natural user phrasings — "penetration testing", "pentest", "red team", "cloud security audit" — are absent, including the skill's own namesake term. Fits anchor 3 (relevant keywords but missing common variations/synonyms) rather than 4, since the omissions are substantial, not just 'a few'.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Naming the three specific cloud platforms carves out a clear niche that few other skills would claim, giving minor overlap risk only with closely related defensive cloud-audit/hardening skills. Not 5 because 'comprehensive security assessments' lacks distinct trigger phrasing and could also fire for defensive cloud-security review requests.

4 / 5

Total

12

/

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/cloud-penetration-testing/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.