aegis
Skill2 starsChanged 31 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Run a scoped defensive security review and remediation workflow. Produce a threat model, reproducible findings, tested changes, and residual-risk handoff.
4 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- adambrai/Claude_Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- Erkan3034/aegistheir own version, first seen Jul 28, 2026
- GerardoRdz96/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 13, 2026
- myclaude-sh/myclaude-creator-enginetheir own version, first seen Apr 6, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 4
- myclaude-sh/myclaude-creator-engine★ 25same name
- adambrai/Claude_Skills★ 1same name
- Erkan3034/aegis★ 1same name
- GerardoRdz96/claude-skills★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository37 other files it gives its agents.
- canonSkill
- colorSkill
- formSkill
- graphicsSkill
- layoutSkill
- motionSkill
- pilotSkill
- systemsSkill
- typeSkill
- holdfastSkill
- assaySkill
- flightlineSkill
- gaugeSkill
- groundworkSkill
- gungnirSkill
- husbandrySkill
- load-bearingSkill
- pilotSkill
- plumbSkill
- stationkeepingSkill
- crucibleSkill
- envoySkill
- forgeSkill
- ledgerSkill
- prospectSkill
- reckoningSkill
- forageSkill
- touchstoneSkill
- bearingsSkill
- bulwarkSkill
- keelSkill
- liverySkill
- lookoutSkill
- pilotSkill
- seaworthySkill
- trialsSkill
- wellspringSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 7 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
7
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 16
Run a scoped defensive security review and remediation workflow.
- Very specific: line 28
Before starting, inspect the project and bind SCA_CMD to its real trusted command with --var 'SCA_CMD=<actual command>'.
- Very specific: line 40
Test scope and allowed actions are recorded.
- Very specific: line 43
When this stage is fulfilled: checklist advance scope --run "$RUN".
- Distinctive: line 47
Follow the highest-impact abuse paths into actual code.
- Very specific: line 56
Run the bound sensor: checklist verify defend --run "$RUN".
- Very specific: line 57
Only if the check genuinely does not apply: checklist na defend dependency-scan-clean --run "$RUN" --reason "<scope reason>".
- Very specific: line 78
If an input or permission is missing, name the blocker and leave the relevant item pending.
- Very specific: line 84
After all required work and stage closures is recorded, use checklist done --run "$RUN".
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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.
Files
<!--
Copyright 2026 IamK77 — Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0.
See ./LICENSE and ./NOTICE · https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
-->aegis
Run a scoped defensive security review and remediation workflow. Produce a threat model, reproducible findings, tested changes, and residual-risk handoff.
Inputs
Target repository or design; assets and trust boundaries; authorised test scope; deployment context. Establish the real dependency-scan command before running it.
Run record
Use checklist 0.5 or newer for this SOP. Reading or reloading the skill must not reset work. For a new task, run checklist init "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}" --new --path "/absolute/project"; retain its returned ID as RUN. For existing work, use checklist resume "$RUN", then checklist show --run "$RUN". Outside Claude, replace the skill-directory variable with this directory’s actual path.
Commands below record work after it is done. Replace evidence placeholders with concise artifact locations and observations. Manual confirmations are not independent proof; a sensor pass covers only the command and inputs it observed. verify does not close a stage; advance checks that its required readings are fulfilled. Use report --run "$RUN" for the retained history.
Before starting, inspect the project and bind SCA_CMD to its real trusted command with --var 'SCA_CMD=<actual command>'. Do not use an echo/no-op to produce a green result. checklist resume "$RUN" --var 'SCA_CMD=<new command>' changes the binding and invalidates earlier readings; commands and output are stored locally, so do not bind secrets.
Procedure
scope
Map entry points, sensitive assets, identities, and trust boundaries. Agree which systems and test actions are in scope; a local review does not authorise production probing.
Record these artifacts after doing the work:
- Threat model identifies assets, entry points, and trust boundaries.
checklist check scope boundary --run "$RUN" --evidence "<artifact and observation>" - Test scope and allowed actions are recorded.
checklist check scope permission --run "$RUN" --evidence "<artifact and observation>"
When this stage is fulfilled: checklist advance scope --run "$RUN".
defend
Follow the highest-impact abuse paths into actual code. Reproduce safely, repair the responsible boundary, and retain a regression. Run the project dependency scanner; distinguish a negative finding from an unavailable scanner.
Record these artifacts after doing the work:
- Each finding has a reachable path, impact, and reproducible evidence.
checklist check defend findings --run "$RUN" --evidence "<artifact and observation>" - Changes and regression results are recorded, with unresolved findings explicit.
checklist check defend repairs --run "$RUN" --evidence "<artifact and observation>"
Run the bound sensor: checklist verify defend --run "$RUN". A failed or unavailable command is not a successful review.
Only if the check genuinely does not apply: checklist na defend dependency-scan-clean --run "$RUN" --reason "<scope reason>". N/A stays distinct from pass.
When this stage is fulfilled: checklist advance defend --run "$RUN".
handoff
Separate fixed, mitigated, unverified, and accepted risks. Name an owner and next action for each remaining material issue; do not turn scanner success into a blanket security claim.
Record these artifacts after doing the work:
- Residual risks and validation limits are explicit.
checklist check handoff risk --run "$RUN" --evidence "<artifact and observation>" - Review report links findings, changes, and test artifacts.
checklist check handoff report --run "$RUN" --evidence "<artifact and observation>"
When this stage is fulfilled: checklist advance handoff --run "$RUN".
Branches
For design-only work, produce attack scenarios and proposed controls rather than claiming fixes. A dependency scan may be N/A only with a recorded scope reason. Exploitation outside the agreed scope requires fresh permission.
If an input or permission is missing, name the blocker and leave the relevant item pending. A changed requirement may need a new run; an accepted checklist edit uses resume "$RUN" --refresh and requires fresh readings. To abandon work, use checklist reset --run "$RUN" --reason "<reason>"; history is retained.
Completion
A review report with a bounded conclusion; remediation evidence where changes were requested. Gungnir can investigate a selected authorised attack path separately.
After all required work and stage closures is recorded, use checklist done --run "$RUN". This archives the result without deleting its history; it does not authorise any external action.
Reference shelf
Open the technique relevant to the current step. These notes provide concrete methods and examples, not additional phases; this entrypoint defines the run's completion conditions.
- Security review choices
- Selecting a defensive review
- Security response and operational follow-through
- Trust boundaries and bounded security claims
- Handling untrusted representations
- Designing the responsible control boundary
- Choosing security checks by their observations
- A threat model tied to an actual boundary
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.

