Security & Liability Audit

Perform a combined technical security and legal liability review of recent code changes.

Open with one sentence saying what you are about to do and what it will produce.

Scope Detection

Determine what to audit:

1. If dispatched by session-post-implementation: audit uncommitted + recent commit changes
2. If invoked standalone: use git diff (uncommitted) or git diff HEAD~1 (last commit)
3. If argument provided (e.g., HEAD~3..HEAD): use that range

Run git diff --stat to get the list of changed files. Read full files for context around changes.

Part A: Technical Security

Read references/technical-security.md for the full pattern library. Apply these checks to changed files:

A1: Secrets Scan

Grep changed files for known secret prefixes (AWS, OpenAI, GitHub, Slack, Stripe patterns). Check .env handling and frontend env var exposure.

A2: LLM/AI Security

If changes touch LLM/AI code: check for prompt injection vectors, unsanitized AI output rendering, code execution of AI responses, unvalidated tool calls, and unbounded LLM cost exposure.

A3: Agentic Security

If changes touch agent/tool/MCP code: run the Lethal Trifecta assessment (private data access + untrusted content + exfiltration vectors). Verify security boundaries are OS-enforced, not prompt-enforced.

A4: OWASP Checks

Apply focused OWASP Top 10 checks to changed code: injection (SQL, command, path traversal), broken access control, security misconfiguration, authentication issues, data integrity, SSRF.

A5: Desktop App Security

If changes touch Tauri/IPC/webview code: check IPC argument validation, webview isolation, auto-update signing, filesystem access scoping, deep link parameter validation.

A6: Dependency Supply Chain

If dependencies changed: run audit tool, check for install scripts in prod deps, verify lockfile tracked.

A7: Webhook/Integration Security

If changes touch webhook or integration code: verify signature checking, TLS verification, OAuth scope minimization.

Part B: Liability & Legal

Read references/legal-liability.md for the full legal framework reference. Apply these checks to the nature of the changes:

B1: ToS/EULA Coverage

Does the change introduce behavior not covered by the current Terms of Use?

• New data collection not mentioned in privacy policy
• New AI feature without adequate disclaimer
• New third-party integration without pass-through disclaimer
• New payment/subscription logic without clear terms
• Feature removal that may violate conformity obligations

B2: Privacy & GDPR

Does the change affect personal data handling?

• New personal data fields collected
• Data sent to a new third party (DPA needed?)
• Changed retention periods or storage locations
• New analytics/tracking added
• Cross-border transfer to non-EU processor

B3: AI Liability

Does the change affect how AI output is presented or used?

• AI output shown without disclaimer
• AI output made to look more authoritative
• AI used in high-consequence domains (finance, health, legal)
• AI taking autonomous actions without user confirmation
• Transparency notices missing or weakened

B4: Consumer Protection

Does the change affect the commercial relationship?

• Subscription/payment changes without clear disclosure
• Cancellation flow made harder
• Feature degradation for existing users
• Auto-renewal without notice mechanism

B5: Data Transfer

Does the change introduce new cross-border data flows?

• New AI provider (check DPF/SCC status)
• New cloud service in non-EU jurisdiction
• User data sent to new endpoint

Confidence

Label every finding and let the caller filter. See references/technical-security.md Section 8 for the hard exclusions and the false-positive rules.

• Technical findings: report every finding and label it high, medium or low confidence; the caller decides what to act on. Hard exclusions apply.
• Legal findings: flag as ADVISORY (not bugs but risk gaps). No confidence gate, but label uncertainty clearly.

Output Format

Technical Findings

TECHNICAL SECURITY FINDINGS
============================
#   Sev    Conf     Status      Category         Finding                    File:Line
--  ----   ----     ------      --------         -------                    ---------
1   CRIT   high     VERIFIED    Secrets          API key in source          src/api.ts:42
2   HIGH   medium   UNVERIFIED  LLM Security     User input in sys prompt   pkb/agent.py:88

For each finding include: severity, confidence, status, category, description, exploit scenario (for technical), and recommendation.

Legal/Liability Findings

LIABILITY ADVISORIES
====================
#   Priority   Category         Advisory                              Action Required
--  --------   --------         --------                              ---------------
1   HIGH       GDPR             New data field not in privacy policy  Update privacy policy
2   HIGH       AI Liability     AI feature lacks output disclaimer    Add disclaimer
3   MEDIUM     Consumer         Subscription change needs notice      Add renewal notice

For each advisory include: priority, category, what's missing, what to do, and which document to update (ToS, Privacy Policy, in-app notice).

Summary

AUDIT SUMMARY
=============
Technical:  N critical, N high, N medium
Liability:  N high, N medium, N low advisories
Verdict:    PASS / NEEDS FIXES / NEEDS LEGAL REVIEW

Verdicts:

• PASS — No critical/high technical findings AND no high liability advisories
• NEEDS FIXES — Critical or high technical findings exist
• NEEDS LEGAL REVIEW — High liability advisories exist (recommend legal counsel review)
• BLOCKED — Both technical and legal issues found

Escalation

If the audit finds issues beyond what code changes can fix (e.g., ToS needs rewriting, DPA needed with a vendor), clearly state:

ESCALATION: [Category]
ACTION: [What needs to happen]
WHO: [Developer / Legal counsel / Third-party vendor]
URGENCY: [Before release / Next iteration / When convenient]

Important Rules

• No code changes. This audit produces findings and recommendations only.
• Confidence labels on technical findings. Report every finding and label it high, medium or low confidence, so the caller decides what to act on.
• Legal findings are advisories, not bugs. Label them clearly as risk gaps.
• Legal disclaimer. Always end with: "This audit is not legal advice. For binding legal opinions on liability, GDPR compliance, or contract terms, consult a qualified attorney."
• Framework-aware. Know your framework's built-in protections.
• Solo dev perspective. Prioritize findings by actual risk to a solo developer with limited resources. A theoretical GDPR fine matters less than a real secret leak.

When to Recommend /cso

If the audit discovers systemic security concerns (not just point findings in the diff), recommend running a full /cso audit. Examples:

• Multiple secret pattern matches suggesting systemic secret management issues
• No webhook signature verification anywhere in the codebase
• Complete absence of auth on public endpoints
• Supply chain concerns (many unaudited deps with install scripts)

Chain context: see references/workflow-overview.md.