agentleFS
NovaCode37NovaCode37/claude-security-skills/skills/jwt-inspector/SKILL.md

jwt-inspector

Skill13 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Decode and security-audit a JSON Web Token — flag alg=none, missing/excessive expiry, symmetric-alg confusion risk, missing claims — and attempt an offline HMAC secret crack against a wordlist to detect weak signing keys. Use when the user asks to "decode this JWT", "is this token secure?", "audit a JWT", or "check if this token uses a weak secret".

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    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
  1. Very specific:

    Every reported issue fails the build.

    line 55
  2. Distinctive:

    Run the inspector and read the decoded payload to understand the token.

    line 61
  3. Distinctive:

    If a secret was cracked, stress that the key is compromised — rotate it and move to an asymmetric algorithm (RS256/ES256) where feasible.

    line 63
  4. Distinctive:

    Never treat a decoded payload as trusted: decoding ≠ verifying.

    line 65

≈ “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.

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

JWT Inspector

Decode and audit JSON Web Tokens with no third-party dependencies. It splits the token, decodes header + payload, evaluates them against a set of security checks, and (for HMAC tokens) tries a fast offline crack of the signing secret against a wordlist.

When to use this skill

  • "Decode / inspect this JWT."
  • "Is this token configured securely?"
  • "Does this JWT use a weak/guessable secret?"
  • Auditing auth tokens during a security review.

Checks performed

  • alg=none (critical) — unsigned, forgeable token.
  • Symmetric alg (HS)* — HMAC verification key == signing secret; HS/RS confusion and brute-force risk.
  • Missing exp / token never expires; excessively long lifetime.
  • iat in the future, missing nbf, missing iss/aud/sub.
  • Weak HMAC secret (critical) — cracked from a built-in or supplied wordlist.

How to run it

# Decode + audit
python skills/jwt-inspector/inspector.py "<token>"

# Read token from stdin
echo "<token>" | python skills/jwt-inspector/inspector.py -

# Try cracking the HMAC secret with a custom wordlist
python skills/jwt-inspector/inspector.py "<token>" --secret-list rockyou.txt

# JSON output
python skills/jwt-inspector/inspector.py "<token>" --json

# Only fail CI on high/critical (claim-hygiene notes are LOW)
python skills/jwt-inspector/inspector.py "<token>" --min-severity high

Exit codes: 0 clean · 1 issues reported · 2 malformed input. Every reported issue fails the build. The default reports everything down to info (including exp-past); raise --min-severity to low/medium/high to filter advisory notes out of both the report and the exit code.

Recommended workflow for Claude

  1. Run the inspector and read the decoded payload to understand the token.
  2. Report findings ordered by severity; explain the impact of each.
  3. If a secret was cracked, stress that the key is compromised — rotate it and move to an asymmetric algorithm (RS256/ES256) where feasible.
  4. Never treat a decoded payload as trusted: decoding ≠ verifying. Remind the user that signature verification with the correct key is what matters.

Note

Cracking only runs for HMAC algorithms and only against the provided wordlist — it is a weak-key detector, not a brute-forcer. Only inspect tokens you are authorized to handle.

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.