triage
Skill20 starsChanged 2 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Adversarial validation of vulnerability findings. Use when triaging security findings, validating vulnerabilities, or prioritizing remediation.
189 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- udecode/platetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- vercel-labs/add-skilltheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- chrysogonus/power-agentstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ishandutta2007/Awesome-Claude-Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Adelie-Squad/solosquadtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- cloudflare/vinexttheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use writing-beats, setup-matt-pocock-skills and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
LesaniSkillwriting-beats
Shape an article as a journey of beats, choose-your-own-adventure style. The user picks a starting beat from the raw material, you write only that beat, then offer options for where to pivot next, beat by beat, until the article reaches a natural end. Use when the user has raw material and wants to assemble it as a narrative rather than an argument.
Also in 66 projects that use this
GoogleSkillsetup-matt-pocock-skills
Configure this repo for the engineering skills — set up its issue tracker, triage label vocabulary, and domain doc layout. Run once before first use of the other engineering skills.
Also in 167 projects that use this
liufeng1976Skillsetup-ts-deep-modules
Wire dependency-cruiser into a TypeScript repo so each package is a deep module — implementation hidden in subfolders, reachable only through its entry-point files. User-invoked.
Also in 42 projects that use this
SethGammonSkillascii-diagram
Generate perfectly aligned ASCII diagrams — architecture, flow, sequence, box-and-arrow. Uses a programmatic character-grid approach so alignment is guaranteed by math, not token prediction. Includes post-render verification.
Also in 4 projects that use this
simo97Skillmigrate-to-shoehorn
Migrate test files from `as` type assertions to @total-typescript/shoehorn. Use when user mentions shoehorn, wants to replace `as` in tests, or needs partial test data.
Also in 68 projects that use this
LesaniSkillwriting-shape
Take a markdown file of raw material and shape it into an article through a conversational session — drafting candidate openings, growing the piece paragraph by paragraph, arguing about format (lists, tables, callouts, quotes) at each step. Use when the user has a pile of notes, fragments, or a rough draft and wants help turning it into something publishable.
Also in 63 projects that use this
- +1 more from Lesani
Other versions189 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 189
- mattpocock/skills★ 309ksame name
- withastro/astro★ 64ksame name
- vectorize-io/hindsight★ 60ksame name
- ogulcancelik/herdr★ 47ksame name
- herdrdev/herdr★ 47ksame name
- colinhacks/zod★ 44ksame name
- QuivrHQ/quivr★ 40ksame name
- The-Vibe-Company/quivr★ 40ksame name
- vercel-labs/add-skill★ 39ksame name
- vercel-labs/skills★ 39ksame name
179 more not listed
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 repository29 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- benchmarkSkill
- agent-introspectionSkill
- auditSkill
- commitSkill
- contextSkill
- councilSkill
- _criticSkill
- debugSkill
- discoverSkill
- _dispatchSkill
- documentSkill
- evalSkill
- evolveSkill
- goSkill
- orbitSkill
- orchestrateSkill
- perfSkill
- reflectSkill
- secureSkill
- shipSkill
- simplifySkill
- specSkill
- tddSkill
- teamSkill
- threat-modelSkill
- verifySkill
- vuln-scanSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 176 edited versions we read keep these.
4
Distinctive
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 25
If no findings input exists, suggest:
- Distinctive: line 59
Check if findings chain together:
- Distinctive: line 175
All findings marked CONFIRMED without exploit paths
- Very specific: line 176
All findings marked FALSE_POSITIVE without justification
- Distinctive: line 177
No severity adjustments — original severity is almost never perfect
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 176 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
Triage — Adversarial Vulnerability Validation
Iron Law
A vulnerability finding is not confirmed until an adversary would agree it's exploitable. Unvalidated findings are noise.
Process
Step 0: Load Inputs
Required inputs (in order of preference):
VULN-FINDINGS.jsonfrom/vuln-scan- Raw findings from
/audit --security - User-provided finding list
Optional:
THREAT_MODEL.mdfor threat scenario context.harness/engagement.mdfor scope constraints
If no findings input exists, suggest:
"Run /vuln-scan first to generate findings to triage."
Step 1: Adversarial Review
For each finding, challenge it from an attacker's perspective:
Exploitability Check
- Can input reach the vulnerable code? Trace the data flow from entry point to vulnerability.
- Can the attacker control the input? Distinguish between user-controlled vs. system-generated data.
- Is there a path to impact? Connecting the vulnerability to a security consequence (data leak, code exec, DoS).
- Are there bypasses for existing mitigations? WAF, input validation, CSP — all have bypass techniques.
Severity Validation
| Criteria | Adjust |
| Requires authentication | Lower by 1 level |
| Requires specific permissions | Lower by 1 level |
| Chained with another finding | Raise by 1 level |
| Affects all users | Raise by 1 level |
| No mitigation in place | Raise by 1 level |
| Defense-in-depth exists | Lower by 1 level |
Classification
| Class | Meaning |
CONFIRMED | Exploitable with demonstrated path |
LIKELY | Exploitable with high confidence, minor gaps in proof |
POSSIBLE | Theoretical, needs more investigation |
FALSE_POSITIVE | Not exploitable with justification |
ACCEPTED_RISK | Known, documented, accepted by team |
Step 2: Dependency Analysis
Check if findings chain together:
- Find pairs where finding A enables finding B (e.g., IDOR → data exposure)
- Mark chains — chained findings are more severe than individual findings
- Identify root causes — multiple findings from the same root cause should be grouped
Step 3: Produce Output
Write TRIAGE.json:
{
"triage_date": "ISO-8601",
"source": "VULN-FINDINGS.json | audit | manual",
"findings": [
{
"id": "V1",
"classification": "CONFIRMED | LIKELY | POSSIBLE | FALSE_POSITIVE | ACCEPTED_RISK",
"original_severity": "CRITICAL",
"adjusted_severity": "HIGH",
"severity_adjustments": ["requires auth (-1)", "no mitigation (+1)"],
"exploit_path": ["entry point → vulnerable function → impact"],
"chains_with": ["V3"],
"root_cause_group": "RC1",
"remediation": "specific fix instruction",
"effort": "low | medium | high",
"validation_notes": "why this classification was chosen"
}
],
"root_cause_groups": [
{
"id": "RC1",
"description": "shared root cause",
"findings": ["V1", "V2"],
"fix_once": "single fix that resolves all findings in group"
}
],
"chains": [
{
"findings": ["V1", "V3"],
"combined_severity": "CRITICAL",
"description": "V1 enables V3, creating..."
}
],
"summary": {
"total_input": 10,
"confirmed": 3,
"likely": 2,
"possible": 1,
"false_positive": 2,
"accepted_risk": 2,
"root_cause_groups": 3,
"chains": 1
},
"action_items": [
{
"priority": 1,
"severity": "CRITICAL",
"finding_ids": ["V1"],
"action": "specific remediation step",
"effort": "low"
}
]
}Step 4: Report
Present prioritized remediation plan:
## Triage Report
### Summary
- Input: N findings
- Confirmed: X | Likely: Y | False positives: Z
- Root cause groups: K (fix-once opportunities)
- Chained findings: C
### Priority Actions
1. [CRITICAL] V1: {description} — {effort} effort
Fix: {remediation}
2. [HIGH] V2+V3 (chain): {description} — {effort} effort
Fix: {remediation}
### Accepted Risks
- V7: {description} — {justification}
### Suggested Next Steps
- Fix priority 1-3 before merge
- Run `/vuln-scan` after fixes to verifyAnti-Rationalization
| Excuse | Rebuttal | What to do instead |
| "All findings are real, no need to triage" | False positives waste fix time and erode trust in the process. | Validate every finding. Noise reduces signal. |
| "Triaging takes too long" | Fixing false positives takes longer than triaging them. | Triage first, fix only confirmed findings. |
| "It's obviously a vulnerability" | "Obvious" vulnerabilities are often mitigated by context you haven't checked. | Trace the exploit path before confirming. |
| "We can just fix them all" | Not all findings need fixing. Some are accepted risks. | Prioritize by confirmed severity and effort. |
| "Chaining is theoretical" | Real-world breaches use chained vulnerabilities. | Check for chains — they change severity. |
Evidence Required
- Every finding classified (CONFIRMED/LIKELY/POSSIBLE/FALSE_POSITIVE/ACCEPTED_RISK)
- Each CONFIRMED finding has a traced exploit path
- Each FALSE_POSITIVE has justification for dismissal
- Severity adjustments documented per finding
- Root cause groups identified where applicable
- Chained findings identified and combined severity assessed
- TRIAGE.json written with action items
- Priority actions ordered by severity × effort
Red Flags
- All findings marked CONFIRMED without exploit paths
- All findings marked FALSE_POSITIVE without justification
- No severity adjustments — original severity is almost never perfect
- Ignoring finding chains — individual severity ≠ chain severity
- Skipping dependency analysis between findings
- TRIAGE.json action items not ordered by priority
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.

