agent-skill-security-auditor
Skill0 starsChanged 25 days agoMITView on GitHub
Inspect Agent Skills for dangerous instructions, unexpected scripts, credential exfiltration, symlinks, scope escalation and third-party provenance before installation.
- Installs packages
In this repository28 other files it gives its agents.
- backend-api-engineerSkill
- backend-debuggingSkill
- backup-disaster-recoverySkill
- code-review-prSkill
- database-transaction-integritySkill
- dependency-supply-chain-auditorSkill
- devops-ci-cdSkill
- documentation-handoverSkill
- frontend-design-directionSkill
- llm-api-integrationSkill
- load-resilience-testingSkill
- mcp-integration-builderSkill
- observability-monitoringSkill
- performance-accessibilitySkill
- playwright-webapp-testingSkill
- privacy-data-governanceSkill
- product-business-analystSkill
- project-bootstrap-environmentsSkill
- qa-release-gatekeeperSkill
- qa-test-strategySkill
- react-artifacts-builderSkill
- security-authorization-auditorSkill
- skill-authoring-toolkitSkill
- skill-evaluation-benchmarkSkill
- software-architectSkill
- technical-project-orchestratorSkill
- theme-design-systemSkill
- visual-assets-designSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Very specific: line 12
Run python scripts/audit_skills.py --root path/to/skills --json to find heuristic indicators (unsafe shell pipelines, destructive actions, …
- Distinctive: line 16
Prefer explicit user-scope, no-overwrite installation.
≈ “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
Security audit for untrusted Agent Skills
A skill folder is executable guidance, not a sandbox: all third-party skills require source review before installing or running scripts.
- Establish upstream repository, exact commit, license, maintainer and why the capability is needed; avoid installing unknown collections wholesale.
- Inventory SKILL.md, scripts, embedded assets, nested references, symlinks and executable binaries. Note external URLs, shell commands, pip/npm install hooks and network calls.
- Run
python scripts/audit_skills.py --root path/to/skills --jsonto find heuristic indicators (unsafe shell pipelines, destructive actions, credential paths, instruction override, unexpected binaries/symlinks). Treat scanner results as leads, not a security guarantee. - Manually inspect suspicious code, transitive dependencies and whether apparent "do not run" examples are false positives. Never execute an untrusted audit target.
- Compare declared scope and actual commands: filesystem reads, network destinations, GitHub permissions, browser automation, production mutation and secrets access.
- Classify APPROVE / REVIEW / REJECT with documented provenance, findings, residual risk and owner permission. Any high-risk unresolved behavior blocks installation.
- Prefer explicit user-scope, no-overwrite installation; pin revision and re-audit when upgrading.
Output: inventory, findings with file/line/reason, rights/provenance, tool permissions, mitigation and decision. A clean static scan does not certify safety or detect every prompt injection.
Execution dependency
The static scanner is scripts/audit_skills.py in the public source checkout. Installing only this SKILL.md does not install the Python utility. Use a locally inspected copy of the repository or conduct manual source review when the helper is absent. Never fetch-and-execute an unknown scanner; absence of a scanner is not an approval to install untrusted skills.
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.

