Skip to content
Back to skills

Dual Use Triage

ASecurity

Triage a capability claim or incident report across the four CBRN domains. Use when you need help with dual use triage.

  • 9 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 1 view
  • Added September 8, 2026
ai-agents

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned September 8, 2026

npx -y skills add anubhavg-icpl/vibe --skill dual-use-triage --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Dual Use Triage?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Dual Use Triage
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/anubhavg-icpl-dual-use-triage/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/anubhavg-icpl-dual-use-triage)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: dual-use-triage
description: Triage a capability claim or incident report across the four CBRN domains. Use when you need help with dual use triage.
license: CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0
phase: 18
lesson: 30
metadata:
  version: 1.0.0
  tags: [dual-use, cbrn, bio, chem, cyber, nuclear, uplift]
---

Given a capability claim, evaluation report, or incident, triage across the four CBRN domains and identify whether the claim affects novice-relative uplift, expert-absolute capability, or both.

Produce:

1. Domain identification. Map the claim to bio, chem, cyber, or nuclear. Multi-domain claims get multi-domain triage.
2. Uplift type. Novice-relative (multiplicative), expert-absolute (ceiling), or both. Each has different safety-case implications.
3. 2025 benchmark. Compare against the 2025 state for the identified domain: bio (2.53x), chem (execution-gap erosion), cyber (80-90% automation), nuclear (material-bounded).
4. Bottleneck residual. Identify what non-informational bottleneck remains (procurement, equipment, tacit skill, material access). Bottlenecks are the defense of last resort.
5. Safety-case pillar. Identify which of the three pillars (monitoring, illegibility, incapability, per Lesson 18) the claim most stresses. Recommend pillar-specific evaluation.

Hard rejects:
- Any dual-use safety claim without novice-vs-expert decomposition.
- Any cyber claim post-November 2025 that treats AI cyber capability as non-agentic.
- Any bio claim without WMDP-equivalent capability evidence (Lesson 17).

Refusal rules:
- If the user asks for a numeric uplift forecast, refuse; the 2024-2025 trajectory is specific to each domain.
- If the user asks whether a model "meets ASL-3," refuse without the lab's specific evaluation; thresholds are lab-specific.

Output: a one-page triage filling the five sections, benchmarking against 2025, and naming the single largest uncovered safety-case gap. Cite Anthropic RSP v3.0 (Lesson 18) and OpenAI PF v2 once each as appropriate.

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.