nist-design
Skill1 starsChanged 4 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Walk NIST SSDF Phase 2 (Design) and file GitHub epics for the three design practices — PW.1 threat modeling and secure-by-design, PW.2 independent design review, PW.4 reuse of well-secured components instead of duplicating functionality. Use before starting a new major feature, when threat modeling an architecture, when reviewing a design for security compliance, or when the user mentions NIST SSDF, SP 800-218, SSDF phase 2, threat modeling, or the PW.1/PW.2/PW.4 practices.
In this repository13 other files it gives its agents.
- feature-development-workflowSkill
- gh-release-train-mergeSkill
- github-project-boardSkill
- implement-issueSkill
- nist-buildSkill
- nist-planSkill
- nist-releaseSkill
- nist-respondSkill
- nist-testSkill
- plan-to-issueSkill
- prettifySkill
- pr-from-branchSkill
- release-candidate-reviewSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈0
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 38
Follow the phase walkthrough protocol in references/protocol.md.
≈ “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
NIST SSDF Phase 2 — Design
Phase label: nist-phase-2-design
This skill files GitHub issues. It does not write code.
What this phase is about
Design is where security is cheapest to add and most expensive to skip. In this phase the team uses risk modeling to predict how the software will be attacked, has those models reviewed by someone who did not draw them, and decides which security functions to reuse from already-vetted components rather than build from scratch.
Practices
Walk these in order — each one assumes the previous has landed. Read a practice's reference file only when you reach it, not up front.
| Practice | Name | Reference |
| PW.1 | Design Software to Meet Security Requirements and Mitigate Security Risks | references/pw1.md |
| PW.2 | Review the Software Design to Verify Compliance with Security Requirements and Risk Information | references/pw2.md |
| PW.4 | Reuse Existing, Well-Secured Software When Feasible Instead of Duplicating Functionality | references/pw4.md |
How to run
Follow the phase walkthrough protocol in
references/protocol.md. Substitutions:
<PHASE_N>=2<PHASE_NAME>=Design<PHASE_LABEL>=nist-phase-2-design<PRACTICES>=PW.1,PW.2,PW.4
Phase epic title: [NIST Phase 2] Design.
The protocol confirms scope with the user, finds or creates the phase epic, then walks each practice — checking for an existing epic, asking whether to file, link, or skip, and updating the phase epic checklist as it goes. It never creates an issue without confirmation.
Adapting to the repo
The implementation notes in each reference file are deliberately generic, because this skill is meant to run against any repository. Before drafting an epic, look at the actual architecture — where the trust boundaries are, which components handle untrusted input, what is already documented — and rewrite the notes to name real surfaces and real gaps. A threat-modeling task that names this system's actual attack surface is worth more than one that says "run a threat model".
Note on practice numbering
PW.4 has tasks PW.4.1, PW.4.2, and PW.4.4. There is no PW.4.3 — in SSDF v1.1 it moved to PW.1.3. The reference files preserve NIST's numbering; do not renumber them to close the gap.
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.

