momentmakermomentmaker/kaijutsu/skills/community/security-and-hardening/SKILL.md

security-and-hardening

Skill3 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

OWASP-Top-10-aware security review of a diff or target file set. Use when the user says "security review", "OWASP check", "audit for vulns", "harden this", "security audit", or invokes /security. Composes blunder-hunt's hostile-input lens. Surfaces injection, auth gaps, broken access control, sensitive data exposure, and supply-chain risks.

88 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

thistleknot/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
ishandutta2007/Awesome-Agent-Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
enes-alatas/spooltheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
TheAstroByte/astrobyte-agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
MMACABRE/SKILLStheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
celestialdust/achilles-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026

Used with

Projects with it also use constraint-driven-development, observability-and-instrumentation and 8 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

MrCipherSmithSkill
constraint-driven-development
Use when a project needs a persistent, measurable quality bar — starting a project without documented standards, 'set up constraints', or when coverage/perf/a11y thresholds get re-debated per-PR. Produces CONSTRAINTS.md with enforceable numbers, ratchets, and a guard against silent weakening. NOT for throwaway prototypes or a one-off CI setup.
Also in 16 projects that use this
HK-hubSkill
observability-and-instrumentation
Instruments code so production behavior is visible and diagnosable. Use when adding logging, metrics, tracing, or alerting. Use when shipping any feature that runs in production and you need evidence it works. Use when production issues are reported but you can't tell what happened from the available data.
Also in 36 projects that use this
HK-hubSkill
deprecation-and-migration
Manages deprecation and migration. Use when removing old systems, APIs, or features. Use when migrating users from one implementation to another. Use when deciding whether to maintain or sunset existing code.
Also in 40 projects that use this
seikaikyoSkill
doubt-driven-development
對非平凡決策啟動新鮮 context 對抗審查（找碴不背書），在修正還便宜的時候抓出錯誤方向。適用：高風險改動（production、資安敏感邏輯、不可逆操作）、不熟的程式碼、要宣稱「這樣是安全的 / 可行的」之前。機械性操作與一行修改不適用。
Also in 39 projects that use this
seikaikyoSkill
interview-me
需求不明時的意圖萃取訪談：一次一題、每題附上自己的猜測、聽出「真正想要 vs 覺得應該要」，直到能預測使用者反應（約 95% 信心）才動工。適用：需求缺少對象 / 動機 / 成功標準 / 約束，或使用者點名「訪談我」「先確認一下」「我們確定嗎」。明確自足的指示、純資訊查詢、機械性操作不適用。
Also in 36 projects that use this
jarosser06Skill
test-strategy
Plans pytest test strategies for Drift's 90%+ coverage requirement using coverage analysis, edge case identification, and test suite design. Use when determining what tests to write, analyzing coverage gaps, or planning test strategies.
Also in 3 projects that use this
+1 more from HK-hub

Other versions88 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 88
addyosmani/agent-skills★ 114ksame name
penpot/penpot★ 62ksame name
ollaya-dev/ollaya★ 1.4ksame name
shashankswe2020-ux/whoop-mcp★ 174same name
enes-alatas/spool★ 48same name
vinvcn/addyosmani-agent-skills-zh★ 46same name
jmxt3/gitscape.ai★ 33same name
sampleXbro/agentsmesh★ 27same name
jaskirat1616/grok-skills★ 22same name
ishandutta2007/Awesome-Agent-Skills★ 21same name
78 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 repository26 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- code-simplificationSkill
- dcgSkill
- editorial-reviewSkill
- journalSkill
- readme-updateSkill
- session-retroSkill
- autopilotSkill
- blunder-huntSkill
- brainstormSkill
- convergence-detectSkill
- deslopSkill
- dispatch-parallelSkill
- doc-reviewSkill
- dreamSkill
- incremental-implementationSkill
- planning-and-task-breakdownSkill
- polishSkill
- pr-reviewSkill
- refactor-planSkill
- scope-checkSkill
- security-auditSkill
- spec-driven-developmentSkill
- unstuckSkill
- verification-before-completionSkill

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

0
Common
Most of the 83 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
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:
Before merging changes that touch auth, sessions, payment, PII, or external network calls
line 14
Distinctive:
After taking on a new dependency
line 15
Distinctive:
After a security-relevant CVE in the project's stack
line 16
Very specific:
After the OWASP sweep, invoke blunder-hunt with the hostile-input lens specifically:
line 46
Very specific:
Write to a markdown file (docs/security-reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-<target>.md) AND post inline as PR comments if a PR is in scope (compose …
line 68
Very specific:
Document supply-chain decisions: When a dep gets a CVE, the decision to upgrade-now vs.
line 85

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 83 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

Adapted from addyosmani/agent-skills under the MIT License. Copyright (c) Addy Osmani. Modifications by kaijutsu maintainers — composed with blunder-hunt.

A focused review pass that walks the OWASP Top 10 against a code change set. The deliverable is a list of findings, each with severity, evidence, and remediation.

When to invoke

Before merging changes that touch auth, sessions, payment, PII, or external network calls
After taking on a new dependency
After a security-relevant CVE in the project's stack
User says "security review" / "audit" / "harden"

Process

Step 1: Identify the target

PR diff: gh pr diff <n>
Branch diff: git diff main...HEAD
File set: explicit list from user

Step 2: Walk the OWASP Top 10

For each category, scan the target. Tick yes / no per finding.

#	Category	Look for
A01	Broken Access Control	missing authz checks, IDOR, path traversal, allowed-by-default routes
A02	Cryptographic Failures	hardcoded secrets, weak ciphers (MD5/SHA1), missing TLS, plaintext PII
A03	Injection	SQL/NoSQL/LDAP/cmd/template injection, unsanitized concat into queries / shells / templates
A04	Insecure Design	trust boundaries crossed without validation, ambient authority, no rate-limit on expensive ops
A05	Security Misconfiguration	default creds, debug endpoints exposed, verbose error pages, permissive CORS
A06	Vulnerable / Outdated Components	dep versions with known CVEs, deprecated transitive deps
A07	Identification + Auth Failures	weak session mgmt, predictable session IDs, missing rate-limit on login, missing MFA gate
A08	Software / Data Integrity	unsigned artifacts, supply-chain trust gaps, missing SRI for external scripts
A09	Logging + Monitoring Failures	no audit log on auth events, no alerting on lockouts, secrets in logs
A10	Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)	user-controlled URLs in fetch/curl, allow-list missing, internal IPs not blocked

Step 3: Compose blunder-hunt with hostile-input lens

After the OWASP sweep, invoke blunder-hunt with the hostile-input lens specifically:

"Find every place where untrusted data flows into a trust boundary."

This catches subclasses of injection that don't fit neatly into the table above.

Step 4: Format findings

For each finding:

[severity] <file>:<line>
Category: <OWASP A0X>
Issue: <one-line>
Evidence: <quote / git blame / repro steps>
Remediation: <concrete fix>

Severities: critical (immediate fix), high (fix this PR), medium (file an issue, fix this sprint), low (FYI).

Step 5: Output

Write to a markdown file (docs/security-reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-<target>.md) AND post inline as PR comments if a PR is in scope (compose pr-review if installed).

Anti-rationalization table

Excuse	Rebuttal
"We're not exposed to the internet"	Internal threats matter too. Compromised employee laptop / supply-chain attack surface remains.
"The framework handles auth"	Frameworks handle SOME auth. Application-layer authz (object-level) is your job.
"We use prepared statements everywhere"	Then prove it. One missed concat in one query is the whole compromise.
"Our deps are pinned"	Pinning ≠ secure. Run `npm audit` / `cargo audit` / `pip-audit` and report.
"It's just a small change"	Auth bypass via 3-line change is the classic story. Size doesn't predict risk.

Hard rules

Never approve a security review without evidence per finding. Vague "looks fine" is forbidden.
Critical findings block merge. No "we'll fix it next PR" for critical.
Test the proposed fix. A remediation that doesn't actually mitigate is worse than nothing — the user thinks they're protected.
Document supply-chain decisions. When a dep gets a CVE, the decision to upgrade-now vs. defer is a decide-worthy moment.

Composes

blunder-hunt — hostile-input lens layered onto the OWASP sweep
pr-review (optional) — post findings as inline PR comments if a PR is in scope
decide (optional) — record any architectural security decisions surfaced

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.

Check your setup, free