remediation-planner
Skill37 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Convert a security finding or vulnerability into a prioritized step-by-step remediation plan with effort estimates per step. Trigger when the user provides a vulnerability, finding, or bug needing a fix plan, asks "how do we fix this?" or "what's the remediation for X?", wants to estimate the work involved in addressing a finding, or needs a remediation roadmap to present to developers or stakeholders.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- saivarun3407/DFIR-AItheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- TashanGKD/tashan-cursor-skillstheir own version, first seen Mar 25, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- TashanGKD/tashan-cursor-skills★ 21same name
- saivarun3407/DFIR-AI★ 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 repository38 other files it gives its agents.
- ad-breachSkill
- ai-llm-hunterSkill
- attack-surfaceSkill
- bugbounty-reporterSkill
- cavemanSkill
- check-exploitSkill
- clickjacking-hunterSkill
- compliance-gap-analyzerSkill
- control-lookupSkill
- ctf-writeupSkill
- cvss-scorerSkill
- deadangleSkill
- droid-reconSkill
- economist-attackSkill
- engagement-handoffSkill
- finding-writerSkill
- find-skillsSkill
- graphql-raiderSkill
- hexstrike-forgeSkill
- high-severity-hunterSkill
- hpp-hunterSkill
- idor-hunterSkill
- js-analyzerSkill
- jwt-crackerSkill
- less-aggressive-attackSkill
- less-noise-attackSkill
- nuclei-template-writerSkill
- pentest-reportSkill
- redirect-forgeSkill
- redmindSkill
- risk-assessorSkill
- scope-grillSkill
- skill-benchmarkSkill
- ssrf-hunterSkill
- ssti-hunterSkill
- vuln-diagnoseSkill
- xss-hunterSkill
- xxe-phantomSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈6
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
- Distinctive: line 17
Do NOT apply this skill — respond normally without the remediation plan format — when:
- Distinctive: line 39
Use this exact structure. Repeat the step block for each step.
- Very specific: line 68
Add a WAF rule to detect and block common SQL injection patterns while the code fix is being rolled out.
- Distinctive: line 76
Keep descriptions to 2 lines maximum — no padding, no restating the problem
- Distinctive: line 79
If a step is a temporary compensating control, label it clearly as such
- Distinctive: line 80
Do not include unrelated hardening advice — stay focused on the reported finding
- Distinctive: line 81
If no concrete remediation exists (e.g.
≈ “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
Remediation Planner
Given any security finding, vulnerability, or bug description, produce a prioritized, step-by-step remediation plan. Each step includes a title, a concise explanation, and an effort estimate so the team knows what to do and how hard it is.
When NOT to use
Do NOT apply this skill — respond normally without the remediation plan format — when:
- The user is asking how to exploit a vulnerability (use the relevant attack skill instead)
- The user is asking about reconnaissance, scanning, or enumeration
- The user is asking a theoretical/conceptual question with no specific finding to remediate
Process
- Understand the finding — identify the vulnerability class, root cause, and affected component from the input. If the input is too vague to produce actionable steps, ask one clarifying question.
- Order steps by priority — immediate fixes first (stop the bleeding), then root cause fixes, then hardening to prevent recurrence.
- Write each step — title, max 2-line description, effort label.
- Do not over-engineer — focus on the minimum set of steps needed. Avoid padding with generic security advice unrelated to the finding.
Effort Scale
| Label | Meaning |
| Low | Quick config change, one-line fix, or a well-understood patch — hours to a day |
| Medium | Requires code refactoring, moderate testing, or cross-team coordination — days to a week |
| High | Architectural change, significant engineering work, or complex coordination — weeks or more |
Output Format
Use this exact structure. Repeat the step block for each step.
Remediation Plan: [Finding Title]
Step [N] — [Short Action Title]
[What to do and why — maximum 2 lines.]
Effort: Medium
Example Output
Remediation Plan: SQL Injection in /api/search
Step 1 — Replace String Concatenation with Parameterized Queries
Rewrite all database queries using prepared statements or an ORM with parameter binding. Apply across every database-facing function, not just the reported endpoint.
Effort: Low
Step 2 — Add Centralized Input Validation
Introduce a validation layer that enforces expected types and formats before input reaches the data layer. Use an allowlist approach for structured fields (IDs, enums, dates).
Effort: Medium
Step 3 — Restrict Database User Permissions
Grant the application's DB user only the permissions it needs (SELECT/INSERT/UPDATE). Remove DROP, CREATE, and admin grants, and create separate read/write roles if the app allows it.
Effort: Low
Step 4 — Deploy a WAF Rule as a Compensating Control
Add a WAF rule to detect and block common SQL injection patterns while the code fix is being rolled out. This is a temporary measure — not a substitute for Steps 1–3.
Effort: Medium
Rules
- Steps must be actionable — a developer should be able to start implementing without follow-up questions
- Keep descriptions to 2 lines maximum — no padding, no restating the problem
- Effort label only — no explanation of why it's that level
- Order matters: immediate/easy wins first, architectural fixes last
- If a step is a temporary compensating control, label it clearly as such
- Do not include unrelated hardening advice — stay focused on the reported finding
- If no concrete remediation exists (e.g. a fundamental design flaw), state that clearly and describe the trade-offs of available mitigations instead
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.

