agentleFS
Sign inStart free
kontouraikontourai/station/.agents/skills/security-triage/SKILL.md

security-triage

Skill3 starsChanged 12 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Triage a dependency advisory, CodeQL SARIF finding, or secret-scanner hit. Reproduce, assess against the named threat model, and record a disposition with rationale. Do not fix without naming the threat model the fix serves.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 22 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 3

    Distinctive

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Assess exploitability against that model: Prefer the least restrictive effective safeguard.

    line 22
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not widen an allowlist, silence a scanner, or edit a baseline to make a finding go away.

    line 32
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not paste secret values into issues, logs, or PRs.

    line 34

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 22 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.

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

Security triage

Own the disposition of one finding end to end. Advisory-only posture ends where you can reproduce; dispositions are maintainer judgment when the fix changes a public contract or a trust boundary.

Procedure

  1. Reproduce or bound. Reach the finding through its real entry point where feasible; when you cannot, say exactly what bounds the claim (version ranges, SARIF rule, reachability evidence). A scanner verdict is a lead, not a disposition.
  2. Name the threat model. State who the defense is against and what it cannot defend. A same-user actor, an operator, and a remote unauthenticated caller are different models; a finding that only matters to one of them is not hardened by gates aimed at another.
  3. Assess exploitability against that model. Prefer the least restrictive effective safeguard. Security is a tradeoff, not a maximum: name what a fix costs in capability or lockout risk.
  4. Disposition with rationale. Fix (owning seam, not a symptom guard), accept-with-rationale (disclosed gap, named follow-up), or escalate to a maintainer decision. Record the evidence in the issue; a scanner count is not evidence.

Boundaries

  • Do not widen an allowlist, silence a scanner, or edit a baseline to make a finding go away; those are owner decisions with attestation.
  • Do not paste secret values into issues, logs, or PRs; describe shape and location, and rotate through the owning channel.
  • Dependency bumps and baseline changes that alter trust surfaces are maintainer-gated even when the reproduction is yours.

Download now (ZIP)

  • Other versions22 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 22

    1. steipete/warelay★ 394ksame name
    2. moltbot/clawdbot★ 394ksame name
    3. moltbot/moltbot★ 394ksame name
    4. clawdbot/clawdbot★ 394ksame name
    5. steipete/clawdis★ 394ksame name
    6. openclaw/openclaw★ 394ksame name
    7. molt-bot/clawdbot★ 391ksame name
    8. symfony/symfony★ 31ksame name
    9. rack/rack★ 5.1ksame name
    10. OpenBMB/EdgeClaw★ 1.2ksame name

    12 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.

  • Used alongsideProjects with it also use openclaw-qa-testing.

    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.
    • AtomicBot-aiSkill

      openclaw-qa-testing

      Run, watch, debug, and extend OpenClaw QA testing with qa-lab and qa-channel. Use when Codex needs to execute the repo-backed QA suite, inspect live QA artifacts, debug failing scenarios, add new QA scenarios, or explain the OpenClaw QA workflow. Prefer the live OpenAI lane with regular openai/gpt-5.4 in fast mode; do not use gpt-5.4-pro or gpt-5.4-mini unless the user explicitly overrides that policy.

      Also in 3 projects that use this

  • In this repository16 other files it gives its agents.

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

Reviews can't be read right now.

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