risk-assessor
Skill37 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Scores a vulnerability using likelihood × impact, CIA triad analysis, CVSS correlation, and SLA-bound remediation urgency. Trigger when the user describes a vulnerability and wants to know how serious it is, asks "what's the risk level?" or "how urgent is this to fix?", has a CVSS score but wants it contextualized with compensating controls and business impact, needs to assign a remediation SLA, or wants to document risk treatment (mitigate, accept, transfer, avoid).
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- GustavoGutierrez/engineering-skillstheir own version, first seen Jun 16, 2026
- euCann/OSCAL-GRC-SKILLStheir own version, first seen Jan 20, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- euCann/OSCAL-GRC-SKILLS★ 8same name
- GustavoGutierrez/engineering-skills★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository38 other files it gives its agents.
- ad-breachSkill
- ai-llm-hunterSkill
- attack-surfaceSkill
- bugbounty-reporterSkill
- cavemanSkill
- check-exploitSkill
- clickjacking-hunterSkill
- compliance-gap-analyzerSkill
- control-lookupSkill
- ctf-writeupSkill
- cvss-scorerSkill
- deadangleSkill
- droid-reconSkill
- economist-attackSkill
- engagement-handoffSkill
- finding-writerSkill
- find-skillsSkill
- graphql-raiderSkill
- hexstrike-forgeSkill
- high-severity-hunterSkill
- hpp-hunterSkill
- idor-hunterSkill
- js-analyzerSkill
- jwt-crackerSkill
- less-aggressive-attackSkill
- less-noise-attackSkill
- nuclei-template-writerSkill
- pentest-reportSkill
- redirect-forgeSkill
- redmindSkill
- remediation-plannerSkill
- scope-grillSkill
- skill-benchmarkSkill
- ssrf-hunterSkill
- ssti-hunterSkill
- vuln-diagnoseSkill
- xss-hunterSkill
- xxe-phantomSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈9
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 8
When the user describes a vulnerability or security risk, score it using a structured likelihood × impact matrix, analyze the CIA triad, …
- Distinctive: line 12
Do NOT apply the risk scoring format — respond normally — when:
- Distinctive: line 17
No concrete vulnerability or security risk has been described — the scoring methodology requires a real subject
- Distinctive: line 23
Before scoring, confirm you have:
- Distinctive: line 32
If any of these are missing and the description is too vague to infer them, ask for the missing items before scoring.
- Distinctive: line 200
Accept: Only valid for Low residual risk.
- Distinctive: line 219
Never output a score without justifying both likelihood and impact — a number without context is not an assessment
- Distinctive: line 220
Always recalculate residual risk explicitly when controls are present — do not assume controls are 100% effective
- Distinctive: line 223
If CVSS and the matrix diverge, always explain the discrepancy.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Risk Assessor
When the user describes a vulnerability or security risk, score it using a structured likelihood × impact matrix, analyze the CIA triad, correlate with CVSS if available, and produce a complete risk classification with treatment recommendations and escalation triggers.
When NOT to use
Do NOT apply the risk scoring format — respond normally — when:
- The user is asking how to exploit a vulnerability (use
check-exploitor the relevant hunter skill) - The user is asking how to fix a vulnerability (use
remediation-plannerinstead) - The user is asking a general question about risk management theory or frameworks
- The user is asking about compliance requirements without describing a specific vulnerability
- No concrete vulnerability or security risk has been described — the scoring methodology requires a real subject
Step 1 — Gather Context
Before scoring, confirm you have:
- Affected component — what system, service, or asset is vulnerable
- Network exposure — internet-facing, internal network, local only, physical access only
- Authentication required — none, low-privilege account, high-privilege account
- Exploit availability — no known exploit, theoretical, PoC published, weaponized, actively exploited
- Data in scope — public data, internal data, PII/PHI/PCI, credentials, IP
- Existing controls — WAF, network segmentation, EDR, monitoring, compensating controls
- CVSS score — if available (v3.x preferred)
If any of these are missing and the description is too vague to infer them, ask for the missing items before scoring.
Step 2 — Score Likelihood (1–3)
Likelihood measures how probable exploitation is, given attacker capability and environmental exposure.
| Score | Level | Criteria |
| 1 | Low | No public exploit; requires physical access or highly privileged position; complex multi-step chain; no known threat actors targeting this class |
| 2 | Medium | Technique or PoC is known and published; exploitable remotely with moderate skill; requires non-default conditions or limited user interaction |
| 3 | High | Exploit is public or weaponized; network-accessible with no authentication; actively exploited in the wild (CISA KEV confirmed or credible threat intel) |
Likelihood modifiers — evaluate each and adjust the base score:
| Factor | Modifier |
| Attack vector: Network | +0.5 |
| Attack vector: Adjacent network | 0 |
| Attack vector: Local or Physical | −0.5 |
| No authentication required | +0.5 |
| High privilege required | −0.5 |
| User interaction required | −0.5 |
| Patch available and applied | Score only residual risk; inherent likelihood unchanged |
| Patch available but not applied | 0 |
| No patch available | +0.5 |
| Actively exploited in the wild | Override to 3 regardless of other factors |
Round modifiers to the nearest integer; clamp to [1, 3].
Step 3 — Score Impact (1–3)
Impact measures the worst-case consequence if the vulnerability is exploited. Evaluate each CIA axis, then take the highest axis score as the overall impact score.
Confidentiality — can an attacker read data they shouldn't?
| Score | Criteria |
| 0 | No data exposed |
| 1 | Non-sensitive or public data; limited scope |
| 2 | Internal data, credentials, or business-sensitive information |
| 3 | PII, PHI, PCI data; secrets; mass exfiltration possible |
Integrity — can an attacker modify data or code?
| Score | Criteria |
| 0 | No modification possible |
| 1 | Limited write access to non-critical resources |
| 2 | Modification of business data or application logic |
| 3 | Code execution, supply chain tampering, full data destruction |
Availability — can an attacker disrupt or destroy the service?
| Score | Criteria |
| 0 | No availability impact |
| 1 | Degraded performance; limited or recoverable disruption |
| 2 | Service disruption affecting users or operations |
| 3 | Full outage of critical service; data destruction; unrecoverable without backup |
Scope modifier:
- Changed scope (exploitation pivots to other systems): +0.5 to overall impact
- Unchanged scope (exploitation stays contained): 0
Business context modifier:
| Context | Modifier |
| Critical system (core revenue, safety, regulatory reporting) | +0.5 |
| Standard business system | 0 |
| Non-critical or test system | −0.5 |
Round and clamp impact to [1, 3].
Step 4 — Risk Matrix
Risk Score = Likelihood × Impact
| Impact: Low (1) | Impact: Medium (2) | Impact: High (3) | |
| Likelihood: High (3) | Medium (3) | High (6) | Critical (9) |
| Likelihood: Medium (2) | Low (2) | Medium (4) | High (6) |
| Likelihood: Low (1) | Low (1) | Low (2) | Medium (3) |
Risk level thresholds:
- 1–2 → Low — monitor; schedule in standard maintenance backlog
- 3–4 → Medium — plan remediation within 30 days
- 6 → High — remediate within 7 days; notify security lead
- 9 → Critical — immediate escalation; patch or mitigate within 48 hours
Step 5 — CVSS Correlation (if score is available)
Map the provided CVSS v3.x Base Score to a level, then compare with the matrix result:
| CVSS Range | Level |
| 0.1–3.9 | Low |
| 4.0–6.9 | Medium |
| 7.0–8.9 | High |
| 9.0–10.0 | Critical |
If the matrix score and CVSS diverge by more than one level, flag it explicitly and explain why — CVSS is environment-agnostic, the matrix accounts for compensating controls, business criticality, and actual threat intelligence. The matrix score takes precedence in production environments.
Output Format
Produce exactly this structure. Do not omit any section.
Vulnerability: [One-line description including the affected component and vulnerability class]
Attack Surface: [Where and how the vulnerability is reachable — e.g. "Internet-facing REST API, unauthenticated endpoint, no WAF in place"]
Likelihood: [Low / Medium / High] — Score: [1 / 2 / 3]
- Attack vector: [Network / Adjacent / Local / Physical]
- Exploit availability: [No public exploit / PoC published / Weaponized / Actively exploited]
- Authentication required: [None / Low privilege / High privilege]
- Key modifier applied: [state the most significant modifier, or "None"]
- Justification: [1–2 sentences explaining the score]
Impact: [Low / Medium / High] — Score: [1 / 2 / 3]
- Confidentiality: [None (0) / Low (1) / High (2–3)] — [brief reason]
- Integrity: [None (0) / Low (1) / High (2–3)] — [brief reason]
- Availability: [None (0) / Low (1) / High (2–3)] — [brief reason]
- Scope: [Unchanged / Changed — lateral movement or cross-system impact possible]
- Dominant axis: [C / I / A]
- Justification: [1–2 sentences explaining the score]
Inherent Risk Score: [Likelihood × Impact] → [Low / Medium / High / Critical]
(Include only if CVSS score was provided) CVSS Correlation: CVSS [score] ([version]) → [Low / Medium / High / Critical] | [Aligned with matrix / Diverges — [explanation]]
Existing Controls: [List each control and briefly state whether it reduces likelihood, impact, or both. If none, state "None identified."]
- [Control name]: [reduces likelihood / reduces impact / compensating]
Residual Risk: [Low / Medium / High / Critical] [Recalculate explicitly — e.g. "With WAF blocking known exploit patterns, likelihood drops from High to Medium. Impact unchanged at High. Residual score: 6 → High."]
Remediation SLA:
| Residual Risk | Target |
| Critical | Escalate within 24h; patch or mitigate within 48h |
| High | Remediate within 7 days; notify security lead |
| Medium | Remediate within 30 days |
| Low | Schedule in next maintenance cycle |
Recommended Treatment: [Mitigate / Accept / Transfer / Avoid]
- Mitigate: [One specific, actionable step — e.g. "Apply vendor patch for CVE-XXXX-XXXX. If patching is not immediately possible, restrict the endpoint to VPN-only access and enable rate limiting at the load balancer."]
- Accept: Only valid for Low residual risk. Requires documented business justification and named owner sign-off.
- Transfer: [If applicable — e.g. "Engage cyber insurance and document residual risk. Validate vendor SLA covers this class of incident."]
- Avoid: [If applicable — e.g. "Decommission the legacy endpoint if it is no longer required by the business."]
Escalation Triggers: Flag any that apply. If none apply, state "None at this time."
- Active exploitation detected in this environment
- CISA KEV listing or credible threat intel confirms active campaigns against this class
- Regulatory data confirmed in scope (PII, PHI, PCI, financial records)
- Privilege escalation or lateral movement is possible upon exploitation
- Two or more vulnerabilities chain to achieve a higher combined impact
- No patch available and no viable compensating control
Rules
- Never output a score without justifying both likelihood and impact — a number without context is not an assessment
- Always recalculate residual risk explicitly when controls are present — do not assume controls are 100% effective
- "Actively exploited in the wild" overrides likelihood to High (3) regardless of other factors
- For chained vulnerabilities, assess the risk of the full attack chain, not each vulnerability in isolation — the chain score governs
- If CVSS and the matrix diverge, always explain the discrepancy; the matrix score takes precedence for production risk decisions
- The Escalation Triggers section must always appear — even if all items are unchecked
- The output must be complete and self-contained — a reader unfamiliar with the vulnerability must be able to understand the risk from the assessment alone
- Accept treatment is only valid for Low residual risk — never recommend Accept for Medium, High, or Critical residual risk
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

