CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
PluginPublic

testland/nuclei-dast

Use when a team runs ProjectDiscovery Nuclei for template-based web scanning, alongside or beyond ZAP: choosing templates by path, tag or severity, rate limits, JSONL output, custom YAML matchers for app-specific checks, community CVE templates and CI severity gates.

Quality

89%

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

86%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.

A well-built operational skill: every step is copy-paste executable, structure follows a logical install-to-CI progression, and detail is appropriately split into two real one-level reference files. The remaining gains are small — trimming the redundant overview quote and repeated install commands, and adding an explicit fix-and-revalidate loop for custom templates.

Suggestions

Drop the quoted "Nuclei is a fast and customisable vulnerability scanner..." overview citation and the repeated install/update-template commands in Step 9 (already covered in Step 1) to tighten conciseness.

Add an explicit error-recovery loop in Step 6: when `nuclei -validate` fails, fix the YAML (id uniqueness, matcher syntax) and re-validate before scanning, mirroring the smoke-test advice in Limitations.

Consider moving the JSONL field-key example in Step 7 to a reference file if cross-tool aggregation grows, keeping only the aggregation command inline.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is disciplined: each step is a command block plus 1-2 sentences of rationale, with the common flags table inline and the full flag reference pushed to references/flags.md. Minor over-explanation remains — the opening quote "Nuclei is a fast and customisable vulnerability scanner..." restates what Claude already knows, and Step 9 repeats Step 1's install commands — keeping it at anchor 4 rather than 5. It is well above anchor 3, whose example carries opinion padding with no counterpart here beyond those small trims.

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: copy-paste install commands for four methods, concrete scan commands for every workflow, a working bash CI gate (`count=$(wc -l < ...)` / `exit 1`), a complete valid YAML template, and an inline CI sequence with the full GitHub Actions workflow in references/ci-integration.md. Specific examples cover the common cases (CVE tag scan, custom template, severity gate, SARIF export), matching anchor 5.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1-9 form a coherent install → scan → filter → customize → output → rate-limit → CI sequence with validation present: `-validate` before running custom templates, the FAQ's "validate it a second time before reporting" guidance, and the Limitations warning to smoke-test before trusting zero-finding output. Because this is an active batch-probing tool, validation exists so the batch-operation cap does not apply, but there is no explicit error-recovery loop (e.g. what to do when `-validate` fails) — anchor 4's "most checkpoints present, minor validation gaps" rather than anchor 5's feedback loops.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Clear overview structure with two well-signaled, one-level-deep references, both of which exist in the bundle: "Full flag reference (target lists, exclusions, concurrency, timeouts, SARIF, debug): references/flags.md" and "Full GitHub Actions workflow ... references/ci-integration.md". Common-use content is inline and bulk detail lives in the reference files, which are flat (no nested references), matching anchor 5's pattern of concise inline content plus clearly-labeled See-X.md pointers.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

87%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 opens with an explicit "Use when" trigger naming the specific tool, then enumerates the skill's concrete capabilities. The main residual weakness is that part of the capability list is noun phrases ("rate limits", "JSONL output") rather than action statements, and it lacks synonyms like "vulnerability scanning" or "DAST" that users might say.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (ProjectDiscovery Nuclei, template-based web scanning) and several specific capabilities — "choosing templates by path, tag or severity, rate limits, JSONL output, custom YAML matchers for app-specific checks, community CVE templates and CI severity gates" — but items like "rate limits" and "JSONL output" are topic nouns rather than stated actions, so coverage is not fully comprehensive of concrete verbs. Fits anchor 4 (several specific actions, minor gaps) better than 5, and far above anchor 3's 1-2 actions.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what — template selection by path/tag/severity, rate limits, JSONL output, custom YAML matchers, community CVE templates, CI severity gates; and when — opens with "Use when a team runs ProjectDiscovery Nuclei for template-based web scanning, alongside or beyond ZAP". The "when" clause has concrete trigger conditions (team runs Nuclei, alongside or beyond ZAP), matching anchor 5 rather than anchor 4 where the when is only partially explicit.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keywords a user would say: "Nuclei", "ZAP", "CVE", "templates", "severity", "CI". Missing common variations a user might phrase differently, e.g. "vulnerability scanning", "DAST", or "security scan", so it does not reach anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage. Clearly above anchor 3 ("some relevant keywords but missing common variations") is close, but the tool name plus ZAP/CVE/CI coverage is broader than the "Works with PDF files" level.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Names a specific vendor tool (ProjectDiscovery Nuclei) and explicitly positions it relative to ZAP ("alongside or beyond ZAP"), giving it a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk — a user invoking this skill means Nuclei specifically. Not merely "mostly distinct" as in anchor 4; the tool-specific framing removes real overlap risk.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

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