agentleFS
HayatelinHayatelin/devsecops-skills/skills/threat-model/SKILL.md

threat-model

Skill0 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Produce a lightweight, one-page STRIDE threat model for a feature or system. Trigger when the user says "threat model this", "what could go wrong security-wise", "STRIDE", or before designing/shipping a feature that handles auth, money, PII, uploads, or external input.

57 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use vuln-scan, supply-chain-review and 9 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • AnthropicSkill

    vuln-scan

    Static source-code vulnerability scan. Reads a target directory (and THREAT_MODEL.md if present), spawns parallel review subagents per focus area, and writes VULN-FINDINGS.json + .md for /triage to consume. Read-only — no building, running, or network. For execution-verified crashes, use vuln-pipeline instead. Use when asked to "scan for vulns", "review this code for security issues", "find bugs in <dir>", or as the step between /threat-model and /triage.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • MesteriisSkill

    supply-chain-review

    Reviews lockfiles, installers, provenance, CI permissions, dependency confusion, artifacts, registries, and publishing.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • AnthropicSkill

    patch

    Generate candidate fixes for verified security findings. Consumes

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • mbwsimsSkill

    orbit

    Run for repo-wide or diff-wide readiness sweeps: "/orbit", "/orbit pr", "/orbit deep", "/orbit quick", "audit this project", "project-wide review", "is this PR ready overall", or "combined security, tests, codebase, evolution, and instruction review". Use this for broad multi-system assessment, not for a single-file review or a one-domain question.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • mbwsimsSkill

    test-plan

    This skill should be used when the user asks to "plan tests", "what should I test", "what tests do I need", "test plan for", "testing strategy for", "test matrix for", "what cases should I cover", "help me plan tests", mentions "/test-plan", or wants to understand what tests are needed before writing any test code.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • patrickserranoSkill

    performance-audit

    Audit and improve SwiftUI runtime performance. Use for requests to diagnose slow rendering, janky scrolling, high CPU/memory usage, excessive view updates, or layout thrash in SwiftUI apps.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 51 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 1

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Prefer platform/framework controls over hand-rolled ones (the framework's authz, the cloud's KMS, the gateway's rate limiter).

    line 37

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 51 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

When to use

  • Designing a new feature, endpoint, or service before it is built.
  • A change introduces a new trust boundary: user input, third-party API, file upload, auth flow, payment, or PII.
  • The user asks "how could an attacker abuse this?" or wants a security design review on a one-page budget.

Process

  1. Scope it. One feature/flow at a time. Get the data flow: actors → entry points → components → data stores → external services.
  2. List assets worth protecting — credentials, PII, money, tokens, the integrity of records, availability of the service.
  3. Draw trust boundaries — where data crosses from less-trusted to more-trusted (browser→API, service→DB, your code→third party). Threats live at these boundaries.
  4. Walk STRIDE at each boundary (table below). For each applicable threat, write one concrete attack and one concrete mitigation.
  5. Rank the threats by rough likelihood × impact and mark which mitigations are must-do-before-ship vs. follow-up.
  6. Output one page — no novel, just the table plus the top risks.

What to check — STRIDE

  • Spoofing (identity) — can someone pretend to be another user/service? → strong authn, signed tokens, mTLS.
  • Tampering (integrity) — can data/requests be modified in transit or at rest? → integrity checks, input validation, parameterized queries, signed/immutable records.
  • Repudiation — can an actor deny an action? → audit logs, signed/append-only trails.
  • Information disclosure (confidentiality) — can data leak? → encryption in transit/at rest, least-privilege, scrubbed errors/logs, no secrets in responses.
  • Denial of service (availability) — can it be exhausted/crashed? → rate limits, quotas, timeouts, payload size caps, pagination.
  • Elevation of privilege (authorization) — can a user do more than allowed? → per-object authz checks, deny-by-default, no trusting client-supplied roles/IDs.

How to fix

  • Pair every accepted threat with a specific, assignable mitigation (control + where it lives), not a vague "validate input".
  • Prefer platform/framework controls over hand-rolled ones (the framework's authz, the cloud's KMS, the gateway's rate limiter).
  • For threats you accept without mitigating, record an explicit risk-acceptance note so it is a decision, not an oversight.

Report back

Deliver a one-page model: a short data-flow description, the asset list, and a STRIDE table (threat → attack scenario → mitigation → priority). Close with the top 3 risks to address before shipping and any explicitly accepted residual risks.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.