nist-respond
Skill1 starsChanged 4 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Walk NIST SSDF Phase 6 (Operate & Respond) and file GitHub epics for the three "Respond to Vulnerabilities" practices — RV.1 identifying and confirming vulnerabilities on an ongoing basis, RV.2 assessing, prioritizing, and remediating them, RV.3 root-cause analysis so a class of bug stops recurring. Use when standing up vulnerability management, writing a disclosure policy or SECURITY.md, setting remediation SLAs, running a post-incident review, or when the user mentions NIST SSDF, SP 800-218, SSDF phase 6, or the RV 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-designSkill
- nist-planSkill
- nist-releaseSkill
- 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 42
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 6 — Operate & Respond
Phase label: nist-phase-6-respond
This skill files GitHub issues. It does not write code.
What this phase is about
Once software is in production, security work becomes a question of how quickly vulnerabilities are noticed and how systematically they are closed. NIST groups these continuous-operations practices under "Respond to Vulnerabilities" (RV): identify them (RV.1), triage and fix them (RV.2), and learn from them so the same class of bug stops recurring (RV.3).
The lessons-learned loop in RV.3 feeds back into Phase 1 requirements and Phase 2 design. Secure development is a cycle, not a finish line — a root cause that keeps producing the same vulnerability is a defect in the process, not in the code.
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 |
| RV.1 | Identify and Confirm Vulnerabilities on an Ongoing Basis | references/rv1.md |
| RV.2 | Assess, Prioritize, and Remediate Vulnerabilities | references/rv2.md |
| RV.3 | Analyze Vulnerabilities to Identify Their Root Causes | references/rv3.md |
How to run
Follow the phase walkthrough protocol in
references/protocol.md. Substitutions:
<PHASE_N>=6<PHASE_NAME>=Operate & Respond<PHASE_LABEL>=nist-phase-6-respond<PRACTICES>=RV.1,RV.2,RV.3
Phase epic title: [NIST Phase 6] Operate & Respond.
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, check
what already exists — a SECURITY.md, a security label, an advisory feed
subscription, an on-call rotation — and rewrite the notes around the real gaps.
The most common finding is that a project has scanners producing findings but no
named owner and no deadline for acting on them, which is an RV.2 problem, not an
RV.1 one.
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.

