agentleFS
Sign inStart free
bitrix-toolsbitrix-tools/marketplace-security-skills/skills/bitrix-security/journal-review/SKILL.md

journal-review

Skill8 starsChanged 16 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use when reviewing JSON vulnerability journals for 1C-Bitrix Site Manager or boxed Marketplace modules, especially when scanner severity may ignore Bitrix admin/content-editor trust boundaries.

  • Reads credentials

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions2 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 2

    1. niyaznurbhasha/claude-skills★ 0same name
    2. sghng/abstract★ 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 repository4 other files it gives its agents.

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
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this skill to review a vulnerability journal in the AI-security JSON format, rationally re-score findings for [[1С-Битрикс Управление …

    line 10
  2. Distinctive:

    Run deterministic review and validation:

    line 37
  3. Very specific:

    Read data.reviewSummary from the output JSON.

    line 43
  4. Distinctive:

    If the user asks for a human report, summarize:

    line 45
  5. Distinctive:

    Use the script's categories as the source of truth.

    line 53
  6. Distinctive:

    Every output vulnerability must include:

    line 73
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not claim the structure is correct unless the script exits successfully.

    line 100

≈ “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

Bitrix Vulnerability Journal Review

Purpose

Use this skill to review a vulnerability journal in the AI-security JSON format, rationally re-score findings for [[1С-Битрикс Управление сайтом]] / boxed Marketplace modules, and produce a corrected journal with deterministic schema validation.

The core distinction is raw journal severity vs BUS-aware triage severity. Never present raw scanner high as the final risk until source permissions, version scope, and exploitability are reviewed.

Expected Input Format

The journal must be JSON with:

  • top-level success
  • data.vulnerabilities[]
  • each vulnerability containing at least:
    • file
    • line
    • type
    • severity
    • description
    • recommendation
    • fix

The script preserves all vulnerability fields, changes only severity, and adds a reviewed object.

Required Workflow

  1. Inspect the journal at a high level:
    • count findings by type/severity;
    • split .last_version from versioned update folders like 1.10.8;
    • identify whether current publication triage should focus on .last_version.
  2. Run deterministic review and validation:
python3 <skill-dir>/scripts/review_journal.py input.json --output reviewed.json
  1. Read data.reviewSummary from the output JSON.
  2. Explain the difference between raw journal severity and reviewed severity.
  3. If the user asks for a human report, summarize:
    • raw counts;
    • reviewed counts;
    • current .last_version counts;
    • high-to-low/medium downgrades and why.

Triage Rules

Use the script's categories as the source of truth; the model may add contextual commentary but must not silently override the generated JSON without re-running validation.

ConditionReviewed severity
IDOR/mass assignment without owner check, available to anonymous/site user, causing privileged or monetary actionhigh
Direct financial business-logic damage without authorization: price/quantity/discount/coupon/bonus manipulation in basket/order/payment sinkshigh
Confirmed backdoor: suspicious obfuscation plus exec/network/file/exfiltration sinkhigh; obfuscation alone is not a finding
SQL injectionmedium unless impact is proven beyond the journal text
Cross-privilege stored XSS: lower-privileged data executes in administrator/moderation/order UImedium
Reflected XSSmedium
CSRF on meaningful state-changing actionmedium
Authenticated privilege escalation, authenticated IDOR, session-dependent Open Redirect, limited blind SSRF, weak security-token crypto, sensitive TOCTOU/racemedium
OAuth/API-Key/bearer token exposed to frontendkeep at least medium; mention conditional validation if token may be a public ID
Stored XSS through trusted Bitrix admin/content editor fieldslow hardening unless low-privileged/external source is proven
Open redirect controlled by trusted content property or mere LocalRedirect usagelow or not a bug without controllable external URL
__FILE__/absolute path disclosurelow
Hardcoded default/demo external tokenlow unless real secret scope is confirmed

Reviewed Node

Every output vulnerability must include:

  • oldSeverity
  • newSeverity
  • changed
  • category
  • versionScope
  • version
  • currentVersionRelevance
  • action
  • confidence
  • rationale

Validation Requirement

Validation must be done by scripts/review_journal.py, not by model inspection. Before claiming the corrected journal is valid, run either:

python3 <skill-dir>/scripts/review_journal.py input.json --output reviewed.json

or:

python3 <skill-dir>/scripts/review_journal.py --validate-only reviewed.json

Do not claim the structure is correct unless the script exits successfully.

Common Mistakes

  • Treating every raw high XSS as a final blocker. In BUS, a content editor/admin often already has legitimate ways to publish HTML/JS.
  • Treating historical update-package findings as current .last_version blockers.
  • Dropping original fields from vulnerability entries. Only severity may be replaced; all other original fields must remain unchanged.
  • Deciding ACCESS_TOKEN exposure by name alone. Confirm whether it is an OAuth/API-Key/bearer token or only a public counter/widget/model ID.

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.

Check your setup, free