anti-reversing-techniques
AUTHORIZED USE ONLY: This skill contains dual-use security techniques. Before proceeding with any bypass or analysis: > 1.
20
7%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/anti-reversing-techniques/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
0%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 truncated disclaimer or authorization notice rather than a functional skill description. It provides no information about what the skill does, when it should be used, or what user requests should trigger it. It fails on every dimension of the rubric.
Suggestions
Replace the authorization disclaimer with a concrete description of what the skill does, e.g., 'Performs security vulnerability analysis on web applications, including penetration testing and code review for common exploits.'
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms users would say, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about security testing, vulnerability scanning, penetration testing, or code security review.'
Move any authorization or usage warnings into the skill body rather than the description field, which should be reserved for capability matching.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. It mentions 'bypass or analysis' in passing but does not describe what the skill actually does. It reads as a disclaimer rather than a capability description. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description fails to answer both 'what does this do' and 'when should Claude use it.' There is no 'Use when...' clause, no explanation of capabilities, and the text appears to be a truncated authorization warning rather than a functional description. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | There are no natural keywords a user would say when needing this skill. Terms like 'dual-use security techniques' and 'authorized use only' are meta-language about the skill itself, not trigger terms for matching user requests. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description is so vague that it could apply to virtually any security-related skill. 'Bypass or analysis' is extremely broad and provides no clear niche or distinct triggers to differentiate it from other skills. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
14%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is almost entirely a policy/authorization wrapper with no substantive technical content. The actual instructions are four vague, abstract steps that provide no concrete guidance on binary analysis, anti-debugging techniques, or any specific tools or commands. The referenced implementation playbook that would contain the real content is missing from the bundle, leaving the skill hollow and non-actionable.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable examples of analysis techniques (e.g., specific commands for tools like `gdb`, `radare2`, `ghidra` scripting, or `strace`) directly in the SKILL.md or provide the referenced `resources/implementation-playbook.md` bundle file.
Replace the abstract instruction steps with a specific workflow including tool invocations, expected outputs, and validation checkpoints (e.g., 'Run `file <binary>` to identify format → check for packing with `upx -t` → if packed, unpack with `upx -d`').
Reduce the repetitive authorization language — consolidate the authorization check into a single concise callout rather than repeating it across the callout, 'Use this skill when,' Instructions, and Safety sections.
Include the `resources/implementation-playbook.md` file in the bundle, or inline the essential techniques so the skill is self-contained and actionable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The authorization preamble and safety warnings are somewhat verbose and repetitive (e.g., authorization is mentioned in the callout, the 'Use this skill when' section, the Instructions, and the Safety section). However, the overall length is moderate and doesn't over-explain technical concepts Claude already knows. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The instructions are entirely abstract and vague — 'Identify protection mechanisms and choose safe analysis methods' provides no concrete techniques, commands, code, or specific examples. The actual actionable content is deferred to a referenced file that doesn't exist in the bundle. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The four-step instruction list is generic and lacks any concrete validation checkpoints, specific tools, or feedback loops. Steps like 'Identify protection mechanisms' and 'Document findings' are too abstract to guide a multi-step security analysis workflow. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references `resources/implementation-playbook.md` for 'detailed techniques and examples,' but no bundle files are provided, meaning the actual actionable content is entirely missing. The SKILL.md itself is essentially a shell with no substantive content to disclose progressively. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills
- Commit
22710e9
- 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.