CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
PluginPublic

testland/pci-dss-control-test-author

Use when a system handling payment card data needs PCI DSS v4.0 tests or an SAQ level: cardholder data environment boundaries, network segmentation, no stored CVV, track data or PIN, key management, encrypted transmission, and scope reduction with hosted fields or tokens.

Quality

84%

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

85%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-structured, highly actionable build-an-X workflow: executable test code, an explicitly declared helper-harness contract, and halt-on-failure checkpoints at every step, with detail appropriately pushed to two one-level-deep reference files. The only real weakness is the verbatim duplication of the Req 3.4 storage-format rationale between Step 7 and references/strategies.md.

Suggestions

Deduplicate the Req 3.4 PAN-storage-format rationale: keep one sentence in Step 7 and let references/strategies.md carry the full explanation.

Add the missing app-under-test object stubs (CardVault, client, user, AuditLog) to the helper-stubs block so all code samples run against the declared harness.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and efficient: no concept tutorials, and comments carry rationale ('untested CDE/non-CDE network policy drifts into a segmentation breach') rather than padding. However, Step 7's PAN-storage-format rationale paragraph is repeated almost verbatim both within the step and again in references/strategies.md, which is trimmable duplication. Better than 3 (only one instance of over-explanation); not 5 due to that duplication.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, near copy-paste test code with real regex patterns, specific assertions, and an upfront explicit declaration of harness-provided stubs (network_policy, inspect_tls, is_encrypted_aes_256, etc.), which justifies the non-standard helpers. Minor gaps: CardVault, client, user, and AuditLog are used without stubs or definition. Not 3 (the stub framing is explicitly justified and code is executable in-harness); not 5 (several app-under-test objects are undefined).

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Seven clearly sequenced steps (boundary → SAD storage → encryption at rest → transmission → access control → logging → scope reduction), each ending in a bold Checkpoint with explicit halt-and-remediate feedback loops ('File a severity-1 finding and trigger your incident response process', 'immediate secret rotation before continuing'). Matches the anchor-5 validate/fix/retry pattern; the operations are assert-based tests, so no destructive/batch cap applies.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The workflow stays in SKILL.md while catalog material is split into two real, one-level-deep references (references/strategies.md and references/pci-scope.md), each clearly signaled with an accurate description of its contents ('SAQ level selection (A / A-EP / D), PAN-storage rules, per-gateway hosted-fields patterns'), and both files exist and match their descriptions. Clear overview with well-signaled navigation, matching anchor 5.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

78%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 trigger-oriented description with explicit 'Use when' guidance and a rich list of concrete PCI DSS coverage areas. Its main weakness is that the capability verb (authoring/generating control tests) is never explicitly stated, and a few high-frequency user phrasings ('PCI compliance', 'credit card') are absent.

Suggestions

State the action explicitly, e.g. 'Authors PCI DSS v4.0 control tests and determines SAQ level (A / A-EP / D) for systems handling payment card data. Use when...'

Add high-frequency natural trigger phrases such as 'PCI compliance', 'credit card data', or 'payment processing' to broaden keyword coverage.

Consider naming the deliverable form (pytest-style control tests) so the 'what' is as explicit as the 'when'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Enumerates several concrete coverage areas ('cardholder data environment boundaries, network segmentation, no stored CVV, track data or PIN, key management, encrypted transmission, scope reduction with hosted fields or tokens'), but the action the skill performs (authoring tests) is only implied via 'needs PCI DSS v4.0 tests or an SAQ level' rather than stated as a verb. This sits between anchor 3 (1-2 concrete actions) and anchor 5 (comprehensive, fully explicit), landing at 4.

4 / 5

Completeness

An explicit 'Use when a system handling payment card data needs...' trigger clause answers 'when' clearly, and the 'what' (PCI DSS v4.0 tests, SAQ level determination) is present but embedded in the when-clause rather than stated as an explicit capability ('Authors/writes...'). Better than 3 (the when is fully explicit, not weakly implied); short of 5 (the what is indirect).

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage ('payment card data', 'PCI DSS', 'SAQ level', 'CVV', 'track data', 'PIN', 'hosted fields', 'tokens'), but common user phrasings like 'PCI compliance', 'credit card', and 'payment processing' are missing. Not 3 (coverage is well beyond 'some relevant keywords'); not 5 (a few genuinely natural terms are absent).

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'PCI DSS v4.0', 'SAQ level', 'CVV', 'track data or PIN', and 'cardholder data environment' are domain-specific triggers forming a clear niche with minimal conflict risk against general compliance or test-authoring skills. Clearly matches the anchor-5 example's distinct-trigger pattern.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

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

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Reviewed

On this page