security-config-review
Skill4 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Reviews infrastructure and configuration files for security misconfigurations across Docker, Kubernetes, CI/CD pipelines, web frameworks, and secrets management.
- Reads credentials
1 other project uses a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- swap-cameroon/kuro-antigravity-configedited, first seen Nov 15, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- swap-cameroon/kuro-antigravity-config★ 298% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository8 other files it gives its agents.
- API Contract TestingSkill
- compliance-mapperSkill
- DAST ScannerSkill
- dependency-auditSkill
- llm-sast-scannerSkill
- remediation-validatorSkill
- secrets-scannerSkill
- security-auditSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Distinctive: line 52
Use Glob and Grep to discover these files.
- Distinctive: line 63
Use the Read tool to read each config file fully.
- Distinctive: line 78
Consider the project context before finalizing findings:
- Distinctive: line 82
Existing mitigations: If a reverse proxy handles TLS and headers, missing framework-level headers may be mitigated.
- Distinctive: line 85
Do NOT dismiss findings just because it is a development project.
≈ “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
Security Configuration Review
Review infrastructure and configuration files for security misconfigurations. This skill is language-agnostic and supports containers, orchestration, CI/CD pipelines, web frameworks, cloud IaC, and secrets management.
Workflow
Step 1: Configuration Discovery
Scan the project for all configuration files. Auto-detect file types across these categories:
Container & Orchestration:
Dockerfile,Dockerfile.*,*.dockerfiledocker-compose.yml,docker-compose.*.yml,compose.yml,compose.*.yml.dockerignore- Kubernetes manifests:
*.yaml,*.ymlink8s/,kubernetes/,manifests/,deploy/,helm/directories, or any YAML withapiVersion/kindfields
CI/CD Pipelines:
.github/workflows/*.yml.gitlab-ci.ymlJenkinsfile,Jenkinsfile.*.circleci/config.ymlazure-pipelines.ymlbitbucket-pipelines.yml.travis.yml
Web Framework Configuration:
- Express/Node.js:
index.ts,index.js,app.ts,app.js,server.ts,server.js,package.json - Flask:
app.py,config.py,wsgi.py,__init__.py - Django:
settings.py,settings/*.py,urls.py - Spring Boot:
application.yml,application.properties,application-*.yml,application-*.properties,pom.xml - Laravel:
.env,config/*.php,config/app.php,config/auth.php,config/cors.php - ASP.NET:
appsettings.json,appsettings.*.json,Startup.cs,Program.cs,web.config
Secrets & Credentials:
.env,.env.*,.env.local,.env.productioncredentials.json,serviceAccount.json,secrets.yaml,secrets.json- Vault config files
*.pem,*.key(check if committed)
Cloud Infrastructure as Code:
terraform/*.tf,*.tf,terraform.tfvars,*.tfvarscloudformation/*.yaml,cloudformation/*.json,*.templatepulumi/*,Pulumi.yaml,Pulumi.*.yamlansible/*.yml,playbook*.yml
Use Glob and Grep to discover these files. Do not assume a project uses only one technology — scan for all categories.
Step 2: Checklist Application
For each discovered configuration file, use the Read tool to load the appropriate hardening checklist from the reference documents:
- Docker/Kubernetes files: Use
references/docker_hardening.md - Web framework configs: Use
references/web_framework_hardening.md - Secret/credential files: Use
references/secrets_management.md - CI/CD pipeline files: Use
references/cicd_hardening.md
Use the Read tool to read each config file fully. Check every applicable item from the relevant checklist. Do not skip checks — be thorough.
Step 3: Severity Assessment
Rate each finding using this scale:
| Severity | Criteria | Examples |
| Critical | Secrets exposed, RCE possible, complete auth bypass | Hardcoded API keys, privileged containers with host mounts, DEBUG=True with exposed management endpoints |
| High | Elevated privileges, missing authentication, data exposure risk | Running as root, CORS wildcard with credentials, missing network policies |
| Medium | Weak defaults, missing security headers, overly permissive settings | No rate limiting, missing helmet, unpinned image tags |
| Low | Best practice deviations, defense-in-depth gaps | Missing HEALTHCHECK, no resource limits in dev, shell form CMD |
Step 4: Context Evaluation
Consider the project context before finalizing findings:
- Development vs Production: A
DEBUG=Truein a clearly-labeled dev config is lower severity than in a production config. Note the distinction but still flag it. - Project type: A public-facing web app has different threat exposure than an internal tool.
- Existing mitigations: If a reverse proxy handles TLS and headers, missing framework-level headers may be mitigated. Note this.
- Intentional choices: Some configs may be intentionally permissive for valid reasons. Flag but acknowledge.
Do NOT dismiss findings just because it is a development project. Development configs often become production configs.
Step 5: Report
Present findings in a structured report. For each finding include:
| Field | Description |
| Finding | Clear description of the misconfiguration |
| File:Line | Exact location (file path and line number) |
| Severity | Critical / High / Medium / Low |
| Current Value | What the config currently does |
| Recommended Value | What it should be changed to |
| Rationale | Why this matters — what attack or risk it enables |
Group findings by severity (Critical first, then High, Medium, Low).
End the report with:
- A summary count: X Critical, Y High, Z Medium, W Low
- Top 3 priority actions to take immediately
- Any positive security practices already in place (acknowledge good config)
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.

