agentleFS
looties-iolooties-io/looties-skills/security-hardening/SKILL.md

security-hardening

Skill1 starsChanged 52 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use for a scoped security validation campaign or scheduled cumulative hardening of a repository: map trust boundaries, construct an isolated synthetic test matrix, execute real code paths, reproduce findings, fix authorized defects and verify remediations. Not a production penetration test or permission to contact third-party systems.

25 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use coordinate, incident-response 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.
  • swyxioSkill

    coordinate

    Coordinate focused Luna helpers for bounded work and Astra advisers for difficult design questions while doing the main work yourself.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • AnthropicSkill

    incident-response

    Run an incident response workflow — triage, communicate, and write postmortem. Trigger with "we have an incident", "production is down", an alert that needs severity assessment, a status update mid-incident, or when writing a blameless postmortem after resolution.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • OpenAISkill

    observability

    Vercel Observability expert guidance — Drains (logs, traces, speed insights, web analytics), Web Analytics, Speed Insights, runtime logs, custom events, OpenTelemetry integration, and monitoring dashboards. Use when instrumenting, debugging, or optimizing application performance and user experience on Vercel.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • barisariburnuSkill

    performance-optimization

    Complete performance optimization guide for Next.js applications including frontend, backend, database, caching, and general optimization strategies. Use when improving performance, reducing bundle size, optimizing queries, or implementing caching.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • GitHubSkill

    accessibility-audit

    Audits actual components and routes against applicable WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria using consumer-owned design-system evidence and repository tools. Use when asked for an accessibility audit, a11y check, keyboard or focus review, contrast check, or screen-reader verification.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • MicrosoftSkill

    api-design

    Guide for designing and documenting RESTful APIs. Use when asked to design an API, create endpoints, or document an API.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 22 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 1

    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
  1. Very specific:

    Read repository instructions and the applicable existing skills.

    line 26
  2. Distinctive:

    Every remaining finding has an owner, next action and precise blocker if needed.

    line 46

“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 Hardening

An inventory describes intended protections. Only an executed, reproducible matrix shows which protections work. Carry confirmed defects through authorized remediation; preserve the baseline evidence.

Route the work

SituationAction
Periodic campaignRead the harness's frozen cohort, integrated revision and open findings
Missing architectureMap entrypoints, authority and trust boundaries before testing
Unverified protectionMark unvalidated, name the missing test and owner
Reproduced defectFreeze baseline evidence, fix within mandate, rerun the reproduction
Restricted operationBlock that action and its dependents; continue independent work

Procedure

  1. Read repository instructions and the applicable existing skills. Use agentic-peer-review for cumulative history, harness-testing for real entrypoint tests and impossible-by-design for recurring failure classes. Avoid copying their workflows into a new competing checklist.
  2. Inventory authentication, authorization, tenant isolation, agent/tool permissions, secrets, execution isolation, input validation, emails and attachments, web content, connectors/APIs, errors/logging, administrative operations, backups and restoration. For each, record expected behavior, security assumptions, real enforcing code and existing tests.
  3. Build the matrix before execution. Cover positive and negative authorization, cross-tenant access, malformed inputs, denied tools, sensitive-action confirmation, recovery and non-regression. Treat emails, documents and web pages as untrusted data: test that embedded instructions cannot acquire privileged authority. Include interactions across the cohort and repository boundaries, not just individual PR diffs.
  4. Prepare an isolated lab using fake users, organizations, documents, messages, connectors, services, secrets and verified test backups. Use synthetic markers to detect unauthorized access or disclosure. Verify the actual endpoints and credentials point to the lab. No production writes, real emails, third-party probing or customer data. Establish these prerequisites before unattended execution.
  5. Execute the real code paths with existing tools. Split independent domains across fresh reviewers only when delegation is permitted. Capture command, revision, observed result and limits; correlate test output with logs. Preserve a domain's baseline before changing its protections. A missing tool, unavailable environment or incomplete run is unvalidated, never passed.
  6. Classify findings as confirmed vulnerability, configuration defect, coverage gap or theoretical risk. Each needs component, violated requirement, isolated reproduction, expected/observed result, risk, probable cause, minimal correction and regression check. Scanner alerts alone are not confirmation.
  7. Immediately implement authorized, reproduced corrections after freezing their baseline. Use micro PRs with explicit dependency order. An L2 plan already approved for this work is not a reason to request the same approval again. Record truly restricted actions as targeted blockers; keep progressing elsewhere.
  8. Re-run the failing reproduction and legitimate neighboring cases. Test the deployed binary/configuration or disposable runtime when mocks cannot represent grants, parser versions, isolation or restart behavior. Obtain a fresh independent review when permitted; a self-review must never be labelled independent. Production deployment follows its separate authorization rules.

Evidence and completion

Reuse existing equivalents of SECURITY-CONTROLS.md, SECURITY-TEST-MATRIX.md, SECURITY-FINDINGS.md and SECURITY-REMEDIATION.md; do not create duplicate authorities. Add focused automated regressions to the existing CI entrypoint.

Record every matrix cell as passed, failed or unvalidated with evidence. Freeze baseline reports; append remediation evidence separately. Link open findings to owners and next actions, and decisions to the existing decision register. An assessment can finish while a restricted remediation remains open, but the campaign must not claim security completion until that debt is resolved or explicitly accepted by the responsible human.

Verification

  • Baseline matrix executed at its recorded revision, with unavailable controls explicitly identified.
  • Confirmed defects reproduced with synthetic data and corrected within the mandate.
  • Regression checks detect the old failure and permit the intended behavior.
  • Every remaining finding has an owner, next action and precise blocker if needed.
  • Harness campaign state retains the evidence and open remediation debt across sessions.

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.