Skip to content
Back to skills

Msj Audit

ASecurity

Audit a long-context safety evaluation for many-shot jailbreaking coverage. Use when you need help with msj audit.

  • 9 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 2 views
  • Added September 8, 2026
developmentgoperformance

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned September 8, 2026

npx -y skills add anubhavg-icpl/vibe --skill msj-audit --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Msj Audit?

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

Security grade badge for Msj Audit
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/anubhavg-icpl-msj-audit/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/anubhavg-icpl-msj-audit)

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: msj-audit
description: Audit a long-context safety evaluation for many-shot jailbreaking coverage. Use when you need help with msj audit.
license: CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0
phase: 18
lesson: 13
metadata:
  version: 1.0.0
  tags: [many-shot-jailbreaking, context-window, power-law, anthropic]
---

Given a safety evaluation for a long-context model, audit whether the evaluation covers many-shot jailbreaking.

Produce:

1. Shot-count coverage. Report the shot counts tested (should include 1, 5, 16, 64, 256, and at least one >= 512 for models with >= 1M context). If the evaluation tests at a single shot count, ASR is uninformative — MSJ is a curve.
2. Power-law fit. Report the fitted exponent per behaviour category. A shallow exponent indicates the model is ICL-robust on that category; a steep exponent indicates MSJ is disproportionately effective.
3. Category breakdown. MSJ effectiveness varies by category: violent content, deceit, self-harm, bioweapon. Per Anil et al. 2024, violent/deceitful needs fewer shots to jailbreak. Flag any category absent from the evaluation.
4. Defense identification. Is a classifier-based prompt modification in place? Is the classifier itself evaluated for adversarial robustness? Anthropic's reported 61% -> 2% reduction depends on classifier calibration.
5. Compositional check. Does the evaluation test MSJ + PAIR, MSJ + persuasive templates, or MSJ + encoding? Compositional attacks are frequently stronger than any single technique.

Hard rejects:
- Any "our long-context model is safe" claim based on 5-shot-only evaluation.
- Any defense claim without reporting both jailbreak ASR and benign ICL performance on the same classifier — the trade-off is the point.
- Any category-aggregate ASR without a category breakdown.

Refusal rules:
- If the user asks whether MSJ can be fully patched, refuse the binary answer; MSJ shares a mechanism with ICL and cannot be eliminated without eliminating ICL.
- If the user asks for a recommended shot count for evaluation, refuse a single number; request the power-law fit over 5 to 512 shots.

Output: a one-page audit that reports the shot-count coverage, power-law fit per category, defense identification, and one compositional attack gap. Cite Anil et al. 2024 (Anthropic) once as the methodological reference.

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.