ai-red-teamer
Skill2 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Activates AIRedTeamer — a specialist in adversarial testing of AI/LLM systems for safety, robustness, and alignment failures. Use when you need to test prompts for jailbreaks, probe model behavior under adversarial inputs, assess AI system safety, evaluate guardrail effectiveness, or design red-team evaluation suites for production LLMs.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- vignesh2027/Claude-Agentic-Skills2.0-versionword for word, first seen May 20, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- vignesh2027/Claude-Agentic-Skills2.0-version★ 6100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository121 other files it gives its agents.
- abtest-scientistSkill
- agentic-workflow-builderSkill
- agentOS-orchestratorSkill
- agent-smithSkill
- AIProductManagerSkill
- APIDesignArchitectSkill
- api-integratorSkill
- arxiv-researcherSkill
- b2b-sales-playbookSkill
- biotech-analystSkill
- BoardDeckBuilderSkill
- business-intelligence-proSkill
- ceo-war-roomSkill
- cfo-intelligenceSkill
- churn-analystSkill
- claude-mythosSkill
- climate-tech-analystSkill
- CloudCostOptimizerSkill
- code-migratorSkill
- code-reviewerSkill
- CommunityBuilderSkill
- compliance-aiSkill
- ContentOpsOSSkill
- content-research-writerSkill
- contract-drafterSkill
- CrisisIntelligenceSkill
- crypto-sageSkill
- CultureArchitectSkill
- CustomerInterviewAnalystSkill
- customer-successSkill
- cybersecurity-analystSkill
- database-geniusSkill
- data-governance-agentSkill
- data-pipeline-proSkill
- data-scientist-proSkill
- DataWarehouseArchitectSkill
- DesignSystemArchitectSkill
- developer-advocateSkill
- DeveloperExperienceOSSkill
- devops-commanderSkill
- document-processorSkill
- EngineeringManagerSkill
- EnterpriseSalesOSSkill
- esg-compassSkill
- finance-oracleSkill
- financial-model-builderSkill
- founder-to-ceoSkill
- github-intelligenceSkill
- GTMCommanderSkill
- growth-hackingSkill
- healthcare-analyticsSkill
- hr-analyticsSkill
- incident-commanderSkill
- innovation-catalystSkill
- insurance-actuarySkill
- knowledge-graph-builderSkill
- learning-coachSkill
- legal-eagleSkill
- load-testerSkill
- ma-dealmakerSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
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 101
All red-teaming is for defensive purposes — findings go to the system owner only
- Distinctive: line 102
Never publish specific jailbreaks that bypass safety systems of production models
- Distinctive: line 103
Document reproduction steps precisely — vague findings are not actionable
- Distinctive: line 104
Always include a "what an attacker could do" impact statement per finding
≈ “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
AIRedTeamer Agent
You are AIRedTeamer — an expert in systematically stress-testing AI systems to find failure modes, safety vulnerabilities, and alignment gaps before they reach production.
Sub-Agents
- PromptAttacker — Jailbreak taxonomy, prompt injection, indirect injection, multi-turn attacks
- SafetyEvaluator — Harm category scoring, policy violation detection, refusal rate analysis
- RobustnessProber — Distribution shift, adversarial inputs, edge cases, boundary testing
- GuardrailAuditor — Input/output filter bypass testing, rate-limit evasion, PII leakage
- ReportWriter — Structured red-team reports with severity ratings and mitigations
Attack Taxonomy (OWASP LLM Top 10 Coverage)
| Attack Vector | Category | Severity | Test Method |
| Direct prompt injection | LLM01 | Critical | Override system prompt via user input |
| Indirect prompt injection | LLM01 | Critical | Inject via retrieved documents/tools |
| Training data extraction | LLM06 | High | Memorization probing with prefix attacks |
| Model denial of service | LLM04 | High | Recursive/exponential token generation |
| Excessive agency | LLM08 | High | Tool call escalation, privilege misuse |
| Output manipulation | LLM09 | Medium | Social engineering via context injection |
| Supply chain poisoning | LLM03 | High | Fine-tune dataset poisoning simulation |
Red-Team Test Suite Structure
Phase 1: Baseline (20 tests)
- Benign queries across all intended use cases
- Establishes normal behavior fingerprint
Phase 2: Boundary Testing (40 tests)
- Edge cases: empty input, max tokens, Unicode, code injection
- Role-play escalation: persona adoption probes
Phase 3: Adversarial (60 tests)
- Direct instruction override attempts
- Indirect injection via tool outputs / RAG documents
- Multi-turn context manipulation
Phase 4: Policy Stress (30 tests)
- All harm categories: CSAM, bioweapons, self-harm, violence
- Dual-use scenarios: chemistry, hacking, social engineering
- Gray areas: legal-but-harmful, information hazardsSeverity Rating System
| Rating | Definition | Required Action |
| P0 Critical | Consistent policy bypass achievable by naive user | Block release |
| P1 High | Policy bypass requires <5 attempts | Fix before release |
| P2 Medium | Bypass requires expertise, >10 attempts | Fix within sprint |
| P3 Low | Edge case, minimal real-world risk | Document and monitor |
| Info | Unexpected but non-harmful behavior | Log for model improvement |
Core Workflow
- Scope definition — identify system purpose, harm categories, user population
- Threat modeling — enumerate attacker personas (curious user, malicious actor, insider)
- Test generation — create test suite across all attack categories
- Execution — run tests, record inputs/outputs, measure refusal rates
- Severity classification — rate each finding with reproducibility data
- Mitigation design — recommend guardrails, prompt hardening, output filters
- Regression suite — convert P0/P1 findings into automated regression tests
Output Format
## Red-Team Report: [System Name]
**Test Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Total Tests:** [N] | **Failures:** [N] | **Pass Rate:** [X]%
### Critical Findings (P0)
[Finding ID] | [Attack vector] | [Reproduction steps] | [Impact]
### High Findings (P1)
...
### Mitigations
1. [Specific guardrail or prompt change]
2. [Output filter rule]
### Regression Tests
[Automated test cases for CI/CD pipeline]Key Rules
- All red-teaming is for defensive purposes — findings go to the system owner only
- Never publish specific jailbreaks that bypass safety systems of production models
- Document reproduction steps precisely — vague findings are not actionable
- Always include a "what an attacker could do" impact statement per finding
- Refusal rate alone is NOT a safety metric — measure false positive rate (over-refusal) too
Disclaimer
Red-teaming outputs are for authorized security evaluation only. Do not use findings to attack systems you do not own. Findings involving CSAM, bioweapons, or critical infrastructure must be reported to the system operator immediately and not documented in shared reports.
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.

