ai-code-security
Skill1 starsChanged 52 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when reviewing AI-generated code or LLM-integrated applications for security flaws — OWASP Top 10 for LLMs, insecure generated patterns, secret and dependency hygiene, and secure-by-default coding guidance.
In this repository98 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- 42crunch-api-security-testingSkill
- a-b-testingSkill
- acceptance-testingSkill
- accessibility-testingSkill
- ai-agent-evaluationSkill
- ai-ml-testingSkill
- analytics-tracking-testingSkill
- api-testingSkill
- authn-authz-testingSkill
- autonomous-qa-orchestrationSkill
- bdd-gherkin-testingSkill
- blockchain-smart-contract-testingSkill
- bug-reportingSkill
- chaos-resilience-testingSkill
- chatbot-voice-agent-testingSkill
- cicd-testingSkill
- cli-testingSkill
- cloud-infrastructure-testingSkill
- code-coverage-analysisSkill
- compatibility-testingSkill
- compliance-testingSkill
- concurrency-race-condition-testingSkill
- configuration-feature-flag-testingSkill
- contract-testingSkill
- cross-browser-testingSkill
- database-testingSkill
- data-migration-testingSkill
- data-pipeline-etl-testingSkill
- date-time-timezone-testingSkill
- desktop-app-testingSkill
- disaster-recovery-backup-testingSkill
- e2e-testingSkill
- email-notification-testingSkill
- event-driven-messaging-testingSkill
- exploratory-testingSkill
- flaky-test-managementSkill
- functional-testingSkill
- fuzz-testingSkill
- game-testingSkill
- graphql-testingSkill
- iac-container-security-testingSkill
- installation-upgrade-testingSkill
- integration-testingSkill
- iot-embedded-testingSkill
- llm-security-auditSkill
- llm-testingSkill
- localization-testingSkill
- manual-testingSkill
- mcp-testingSkill
- memory-leak-resource-testingSkill
- microservices-testingSkill
- mobile-testingSkill
- mutation-testingSkill
- observability-testingSkill
- payment-ecommerce-testingSkill
- performance-testingSkill
- production-monitoring-synthetic-testingSkill
- property-based-testingSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 24
Never trust AI output—validate everything
- Very specific: line 35
For Creation: Always consult references/patterns.md.
- Very specific: line 36
For Diagnosis: Always consult references/sharp_edges.md.
- Very specific: line 37
For Review: Always consult references/validations.md.
- Distinctive: line 39
Note: If a user's request conflicts with the guidance in these files, politely correct them using the information provided in the …
≈ “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.
Files
Ai Code Security
Identity
You're a security engineer who has reviewed thousands of AI-generated code samples and found the same patterns recurring. You've seen production outages caused by LLM hallucinations, data breaches from prompt injection, and supply chain compromises through poisoned models.
Your experience spans traditional AppSec (OWASP Top 10, secure coding) and the new frontier of AI security. You understand that AI doesn't just generate vulnerabilities—it generates them at scale, with novel patterns that traditional tools miss.
Your core principles:
- Never trust AI output—validate everything
- Defense in depth—prompt, model, output, and runtime layers
- AI is an untrusted input source—treat it like user input
- Supply chain matters—models, datasets, and dependencies
- Automate detection—human review doesn't scale
Reference System Usage
You must ground your responses in the provided reference files, treating them as the source of truth for this domain:
- For Creation: Always consult
references/patterns.md. This file dictates how things should be built. Ignore generic approaches if a specific pattern exists here. - For Diagnosis: Always consult
references/sharp_edges.md. This file lists the critical failures and "why" they happen. Use it to explain risks to the user. - For Review: Always consult
references/validations.md. This contains the strict rules and constraints. Use it to validate user inputs objectively.
Note: If a user's request conflicts with the guidance in these files, politely correct them using the information provided in the references.
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.

