CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
PluginPublic

testland/cve-exploitability-triage

Use when a dependency, image or SBOM scan returned more CVEs than the team can fix and someone must decide what to fix first. Ranks each CVE by EPSS exploit probability and CISA KEV status, applies VEX and reachability, and sorts findings into Fix-Now, This-Sprint, Backlog or Accept-Risk.

Quality

88%

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

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Content

77%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 content is exceptionally actionable and the seven-step workflow is clearly sequenced with validation and recovery paths, but the single-file monolith inlines material (worked example, output template, feed-field reference) that belongs in reference files, and definitional padding around CVSS bands and EPSS/KEV concepts could be trimmed. Splitting reference material out and cutting background explanation would raise both weak dimensions.

Suggestions

Move the worked example, the expected-output template, and the KEV feed field reference into files under references/ (e.g., references/example-report.md, references/feeds.md), leaving SKILL.md as a lean overview with clearly signaled one-level-deep links.

Delete the CVSS v3.1 qualitative band table and condense the EPSS/KEV definitional quotations to one line each — Claude already knows these concepts; keep only the operational rules (missing row is not zero, snapshot pinning, gate rationale).

Consolidate repeated citations of the same specification URLs (the CVSS, EPSS FAQ, and KEV pages are each linked multiple times) into a single sources list to reduce token cost.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and mostly operational (commands, gates, code, worked example), but it explains concepts Claude already knows — the full CVSS v3.1 qualitative band table, extended definitional quoting of what EPSS and KEV are — and repeatedly cites the same specification URLs across sections. This is more than minor over-explanation, fitting the 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' anchor rather than the 'minor instances' anchor at 4.

3 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: curl commands for both the bulk EPSS CSV and the API, a jq join against the KEV feed, a complete priority() function with numeric gate values, and a copy-paste-ready report template. The worked example walks six concrete findings through the exact decision function, covering the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1 through 7 are explicitly sequenced, Step 1 normalizes missing input (severity 'unknown' treated as medium so nothing silently falls to Accept-Risk), Step 4 rejects spec-invalid not_affected claims with a defined recovery path (bucket as if no VEX existed), and the report rules ('every bucket names the rule that produced it, every signal names its snapshot date') serve as explicit verification checkpoints. Not a destructive operation, so the validation cap does not apply.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

There are no bundle files at all — the worked example, expected-output template, KEV feed field reference, and anti-patterns are all inlined in a single ~450-line SKILL.md. Internal structure is well-sectioned and navigable, but content that naturally belongs in reference files is inline and there are no external references to signal, matching the 'some structure, content that should be separate is inline' anchor rather than the 'mostly appropriate placement' anchor at 4.

3 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

92%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.

A strong description: it states an explicit, concrete trigger condition, lists specific actions with the exact signals used, and names the output taxonomy. The only weakness is slightly narrow trigger vocabulary that misses a few natural synonyms a user might say.

Suggestions

Consider adding one or two natural synonyms to the trigger clause (e.g., 'vulnerability scan' or 'prioritize security findings') so users who do not say 'SBOM' or 'CVE' still match the skill.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names multiple concrete actions with their mechanisms and outputs: 'Ranks each CVE by EPSS exploit probability and CISA KEV status, applies VEX and reachability, and sorts findings into Fix-Now, This-Sprint, Backlog or Accept-Risk.' Input, enrichment, and output are all explicitly covered, matching the comprehensive anchor rather than the 'minor gaps' anchor at 4.

5 / 5

Completeness

It opens with an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming a concrete triggering situation (a scan returning more CVEs than the team can fix) and follows with a clear statement of what the skill does (rank by EPSS/KEV, apply VEX and reachability, sort into four named buckets). Both what and when are explicit with concrete triggers, matching the top anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like 'dependency, image or SBOM scan', 'more CVEs than the team can fix', and 'what to fix first' sit alongside the domain's real vocabulary (EPSS, CISA KEV, VEX), but common user synonyms such as 'vulnerability scan', 'security findings', or 'prioritize vulnerabilities' are absent. Good coverage with a few natural terms missing, so 4 rather than 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The scan-overflow prioritization trigger plus EPSS/KEV/VEX terminology carves a clear niche distinct from generic dependency-upgrade or scanner-running skills. Voice is consistently third person ('Ranks', 'applies', 'sorts'), so no specificity penalty applies.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Reviewed

On this page