Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →How the false positive reduction and risk scoring system works.
.claude/skills/shadd0wtaka-zen-risk-engine-skill/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-06 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -35% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -49% | 0% |
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -32% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -47% | 0% |
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -50% | 0% |
How the false positive reduction and risk scoring system works.
pythonfrom risk_engine.false_positive_engine import ( FalsePositiveEngine, Vulnerability, ScanContext, ) engine = FalsePositiveEngine() # Assess a finding finding = { "vuln_type": "reflected_xss", "param": "search", "url": "https://example.com/search?q=<script>alert(1)</script>", "technique": "polyglot", "confidence": 0.9, } result = engine.assess_finding( finding, ScanContext( target_domain="example.com", scan_phase="vulnerability_scan", tool_source="nuclei", ), ) print(f"FP probability: {result.fp_probability}") # 0.0–1.0 print(f"Decision: {result.decision}") # TRUE_POSITIVE | FALSE_POSITIVE | INDETERMINATE
The engine uses a multi-model voting system:
pythonfrom risk_engine.cvss_scorer import CVSS31Scorer, CVSSVector vector = CVSSVector( AV="N", AC="L", PR="N", UI="R", S="C", C="H", I="H", A="H", ) scorer = CVSS31Scorer(vector) print(scorer.score) # 8.8 (HIGH) print(scorer.severity) # "HIGH"
pythonfrom risk_engine.epss_client import EPPSScorer epss = EPPSScorer() prob = epss.get_exploit_probability("CVE-2025-12345") print(f"Exploitation probability: {prob}") # Combined risk from risk_engine.composite_scorer import CompositeScorer combined = CompositeScorer(cvss_vector, epss_prob, fp_probability) # Returns RECOMMENDATION, PRIORITY_LEVEL, URGENT_ACTION_REQUIRED
python# Via MCP zen-agents_agent_run agent_type=analysis target=example.com \ data='{"tool_outputs": [{"tool": "nuclei", "finding": "xss detected"}]}' # The analysis agent will: # 1. Score each finding via risk_engine # 2. Filter false positives # 3. Rank by combined CVSS + EPSS + FP score # 4. Return actionable vulnerabilities only
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→fail | 22,563 | 19,169 | -15% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,112 | 2,677 | +27% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 8,594 | 17,135 | +99% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 790 | 2,371 | +200% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | pass→pass | 15,434 | 16,249 | +5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,783 | 3,572 | +28% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 15,198 | 11,718 | -23% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,496 | 2,759 | +11% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 9,437 | 5,089 | -46% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,919 | 1,742 | -9% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | 12,331 | 4,448 | -64% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,570 | 1,676 | -35% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 14,808 | 4,578 | -69% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,363 | 1,701 | -49% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 9,157 | 3,597 | -61% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,764 | 1,201 | -32% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 22,818 | 7,901 | -65% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,337 | 2,310 | -47% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | 10,602 | 1,780 | -83% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,899 | 947 | -50% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | 8,861 | 3,316 | -63% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,368 | 922 | -33% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | 7,901 | 13,079 | +66% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 765 | 1,639 | +114% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | 14,211 | 3,518 | -75% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,240 | 1,250 | -44% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 17,337 | 6,894 | -60% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,610 | 1,679 | -36% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 17,506 | 5,713 | -67% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,637 | 1,583 | -40% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 9,214 | 3,365 | -63% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,867 | 1,355 | -27% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 10,948 | 1,799 | -84% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,829 | 997 | -45% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 10,179 | 6,840 | -33% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,723 | 1,867 | +8% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 14,672 | 6,593 | -55% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,370 | 1,737 | -27% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | 15,471 | 7,560 | -51% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,979 | 1,699 | -43% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | fail→pass | 13,871 | 2,146 | -85% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,372 | 1,006 | -58% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | fail→pass | 17,623 | 10,351 | -41% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,695 | 2,334 | -13% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +64 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.