agentleFS
nobodyohm-webnobodyohm-web/Thot/skills/security/oss-forensics/SKILL.md

oss-forensics

Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

GitHub supply-chain forensics: recovery, IOCs, reporting.

  • Reads credentials

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

25 rules. About 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 14 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈11

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 14

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  • could be automatic: a setting could enforce it
  1. Distinctive:

    Read these before every investigation step.

    line 42
  2. Very specific:

    Evidence-First Rule: Every claim in any report, hypothesis, or summary MUST cite at least one evidence ID (EV-XXXX).

    line 44
  3. Very specific:

    Suspicious Code Rule: Never run code found inside the investigated repository locally.

    line 50
  4. Distinctive:

    Create investigation working directory:

    line 70
  5. Very specific:

    Create an iocs.md file to track Indicators of Compromise as they are discovered.

    line 83
  6. Distinctive:

    Commit in archive PushEvents but not in API commit list → evidence of force-push/deletion

    line 191
  7. Very specific:

    ALWAYS run a --dry_run before every query to estimate cost.

    line 241
  8. Very specific:

    Use _TABLE_SUFFIX to filter by date range and minimize scanned data.

    line 242
  9. Distinctive:

    Only SELECT the columns you need.

    line 243
  10. Distinctive:

    Add a LIMIT unless aggregating.

    line 244
  11. Distinctive:

    After all investigators complete:

    line 298
  12. Very specific:

    Run python SKILL_DIR/scripts/evidence-store.py --store evidence.json list to see all collected evidence.

    line 300
  13. Very specific:

    Verify each ID exists in evidence.json (hard failure if any ID is missing → hypothesis rejected as potentially fabricated).

    line 335
  14. Very specific:

    Verify each [VERIFIED] piece of evidence was confirmed from 2+ sources.

    line 336
  15. Distinctive:

    Check logical consistency: does the timeline depicted by the evidence support the hypothesis?

    line 337
  16. Distinctive:

    Check for alternative explanations: could the same evidence pattern arise from a benign cause?

    line 338
  17. Very specific:

    Every factual claim must have at least one [EV-XXXX] citation

    line 363
  18. Very specific:

    All secrets/credentials must be redacted to [REDACTED]

    line 365
  19. Very specific:

    Run final evidence count: python SKILL_DIR/scripts/evidence-store.py --store evidence.json list

    line 371
  20. Distinctive:

    If compromise is confirmed:

    line 373
  21. Distinctive:

    If the investigation reveals a genuine compromise, follow the coordinated vulnerability disclosure process:

    line 392
  22. Very specific:

    Always authenticate: export GITHUB_TOKEN=ghp_...

    line 408
  23. Very specific:

    Use conditional requests (If-None-Match / If-Modified-Since headers) to avoid consuming quota on unchanged data

    line 409
  24. Very specific:

    Check X-RateLimit-Remaining header.

    line 411
  25. Distinctive:

    If rate-limited mid-investigation, record the partial results in the evidence store and note the limitation in the report.

    line 415

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

OSS Security Forensics Skill

A 7-phase multi-agent investigation framework for researching open-source supply chain attacks. Adapted from RAPTOR's forensics system. Covers GitHub Archive, Wayback Machine, GitHub API, local git analysis, IOC extraction, evidence-backed hypothesis formation and validation, and final forensic report generation.


⚠️ Anti-Hallucination Guardrails

Read these before every investigation step. Violating them invalidates the report.

  1. Evidence-First Rule: Every claim in any report, hypothesis, or summary MUST cite at least one evidence ID (EV-XXXX). Assertions without citations are forbidden.
  2. STAY IN YOUR LANE: Each sub-agent (investigator) has a single data source. Do NOT mix sources. The GH Archive investigator does not query the GitHub API, and vice versa. Role boundaries are hard.
  3. Fact vs. Hypothesis Separation: Mark all unverified inferences with [HYPOTHESIS]. Only statements verified against original sources may be stated as facts.
  4. No Evidence Fabrication: The hypothesis validator MUST mechanically check that every cited evidence ID actually exists in the evidence store before accepting a hypothesis.
  5. Proof-Required Disproval: A hypothesis cannot be dismissed without a specific, evidence-backed counter-argument. "No evidence found" is not sufficient to disprove—it only makes a hypothesis inconclusive.
  6. SHA/URL Double-Verification: Any commit SHA, URL, or external identifier cited as evidence must be independently confirmed from at least two sources before being marked as verified.
  7. Suspicious Code Rule: Never run code found inside the investigated repository locally. Analyze statically only, or use execute_code in a sandboxed environment.
  8. Secret Redaction: Any API keys, tokens, or credentials discovered during investigation must be redacted in the final report. Log them internally only.

Example Scenarios

  • Scenario A: Dependency Confusion: A malicious package internal-lib-v2 is uploaded to NPM with a higher version than the internal one. The investigator must track when this package was first seen and if any PushEvents in the target repo updated package.json to this version.
  • Scenario B: Maintainer Takeover: A long-term contributor's account is used to push a backdoored .github/workflows/build.yml. The investigator looks for PushEvents from this user after a long period of inactivity or from a new IP/location (if detectable via BigQuery).
  • Scenario C: Force-Push Hide: A developer accidentally commits a production secret, then force-pushes to "fix" it. The investigator uses git fsck and GH Archive to recover the original commit SHA and verify what was leaked.

Path convention: Throughout this skill, SKILL_DIR refers to the root of this skill's installation directory (the folder containing this SKILL.md). When the skill is loaded, resolve SKILL_DIR to the actual path — e.g. ~/.thot/skills/security/oss-forensics/ or the optional-skills/ equivalent. All script and template references are relative to it.

Phase 0: Initialization

  1. Create investigation working directory:
    mkdir investigation_$(echo "REPO_NAME" | tr '/' '_')
    cd investigation_$(echo "REPO_NAME" | tr '/' '_')
  2. Initialize the evidence store:
    python SKILL_DIR/scripts/evidence-store.py --store evidence.json list
  3. Copy the forensic report template:
    cp SKILL_DIR/templates/forensic-report.md ./investigation-report.md
  4. Create an iocs.md file to track Indicators of Compromise as they are discovered.
  5. Record the investigation start time, target repository, and stated investigation goal.

Phase 1: Prompt Parsing and IOC Extraction

Goal: Extract all structured investigative targets from the user's request.

Actions:

  • Parse the user prompt and extract:
    • Target repository (owner/repo)
    • Target actors (GitHub handles, email addresses)
    • Time window of interest (commit date ranges, PR timestamps)
    • Provided Indicators of Compromise: commit SHAs, file paths, package names, IP addresses, domains, API keys/tokens, malicious URLs
    • Any linked vendor security reports or blog posts

Tools: Reasoning only, or execute_code for regex extraction from large text blocks.

Output: Populate iocs.md with extracted IOCs. Each IOC must have:

  • Type (from: COMMIT_SHA, FILE_PATH, API_KEY, SECRET, IP_ADDRESS, DOMAIN, PACKAGE_NAME, ACTOR_USERNAME, MALICIOUS_URL, OTHER)
  • Value
  • Source (user-provided, inferred)

Reference: See evidence-types.md for IOC taxonomy.


Phase 2: Parallel Evidence Collection

Spawn up to 5 specialist investigator sub-agents using delegate_task (batch mode, max 3 concurrent). Each investigator has a single data source and must not mix sources.

Orchestrator note: Pass the IOC list from Phase 1 and the investigation time window in the context field of each delegated task.


Investigator 1: Local Git Investigator

ROLE BOUNDARY: You query the LOCAL GIT REPOSITORY ONLY. Do not call any external APIs.

Actions:

# Clone repository
git clone https://github.com/OWNER/REPO.git target_repo && cd target_repo

# Full commit log with stats
git log --all --full-history --stat --format="%H|%ae|%an|%ai|%s" > ../git_log.txt

# Detect force-push evidence (orphaned/dangling commits)
git fsck --lost-found --unreachable 2>&1 | grep commit > ../dangling_commits.txt

# Check reflog for rewritten history
git reflog --all > ../reflog.txt

# List ALL branches including deleted remote refs
git branch -a -v > ../branches.txt

# Find suspicious large binary additions
git log --all --diff-filter=A --name-only --format="%H %ai" -- "*.so" "*.dll" "*.exe" "*.bin" > ../binary_additions.txt

# Check for GPG signature anomalies
git log --show-signature --format="%H %ai %aN" > ../signature_check.txt 2>&1

Evidence to collect (add via python SKILL_DIR/scripts/evidence-store.py add):

  • Each dangling commit SHA → type: git
  • Force-push evidence (reflog showing history rewrite) → type: git
  • Unsigned commits from verified contributors → type: git
  • Suspicious binary file additions → type: git

Reference: See recovery-techniques.md for accessing force-pushed commits.


Investigator 2: GitHub API Investigator

ROLE BOUNDARY: You query the GITHUB REST API ONLY. Do not run git commands locally.

Actions:

# Commits (paginated)
curl -s "https://api.github.com/repos/OWNER/REPO/commits?per_page=100" > api_commits.json

# Pull Requests including closed/deleted
curl -s "https://api.github.com/repos/OWNER/REPO/pulls?state=all&per_page=100" > api_prs.json

# Issues
curl -s "https://api.github.com/repos/OWNER/REPO/issues?state=all&per_page=100" > api_issues.json

# Contributors and collaborator changes
curl -s "https://api.github.com/repos/OWNER/REPO/contributors" > api_contributors.json

# Repository events (last 300)
curl -s "https://api.github.com/repos/OWNER/REPO/events?per_page=100" > api_events.json

# Check specific suspicious commit SHA details
curl -s "https://api.github.com/repos/OWNER/REPO/git/commits/SHA" > commit_detail.json

# Releases
curl -s "https://api.github.com/repos/OWNER/REPO/releases?per_page=100" > api_releases.json

# Check if a specific commit exists (force-pushed commits may 404 on commits/ but succeed on git/commits/)
curl -s "https://api.github.com/repos/OWNER/REPO/commits/SHA" | jq .sha

Cross-reference targets (flag discrepancies as evidence):

  • PR exists in archive but missing from API → evidence of deletion
  • Contributor in archive events but not in contributors list → evidence of permission revocation
  • Commit in archive PushEvents but not in API commit list → evidence of force-push/deletion

Reference: See evidence-types.md for GH event types.


Investigator 3: Wayback Machine Investigator

ROLE BOUNDARY: You query the WAYBACK MACHINE CDX API ONLY. Do not use the GitHub API.

Goal: Recover deleted GitHub pages (READMEs, issues, PRs, releases, wiki pages).

Actions:

# Search for archived snapshots of the repo main page
curl -s "https://web.archive.org/cdx/search/cdx?url=github.com/OWNER/REPO&output=json&limit=100&from=YYYYMMDD&to=YYYYMMDD" > wayback_main.json

# Search for a specific deleted issue
curl -s "https://web.archive.org/cdx/search/cdx?url=github.com/OWNER/REPO/issues/NUM&output=json&limit=50" > wayback_issue_NUM.json

# Search for a specific deleted PR
curl -s "https://web.archive.org/cdx/search/cdx?url=github.com/OWNER/REPO/pull/NUM&output=json&limit=50" > wayback_pr_NUM.json

# Fetch the best snapshot of a page
# Use the Wayback Machine URL: https://web.archive.org/web/TIMESTAMP/ORIGINAL_URL
# Example: https://web.archive.org/web/20240101000000*/github.com/OWNER/REPO

# Advanced: Search for deleted releases/tags
curl -s "https://web.archive.org/cdx/search/cdx?url=github.com/OWNER/REPO/releases/tag/*&output=json" > wayback_tags.json

# Advanced: Search for historical wiki changes
curl -s "https://web.archive.org/cdx/search/cdx?url=github.com/OWNER/REPO/wiki/*&output=json" > wayback_wiki.json

Evidence to collect:

  • Archived snapshots of deleted issues/PRs with their content
  • Historical README versions showing changes
  • Evidence of content present in archive but missing from current GitHub state

Reference: See github-archive-guide.md for CDX API parameters.


Investigator 4: GH Archive / BigQuery Investigator

ROLE BOUNDARY: You query GITHUB ARCHIVE via BIGQUERY ONLY. This is a tamper-proof record of all public GitHub events.

Prerequisites: Requires Google Cloud credentials with BigQuery access (gcloud auth application-default login). If unavailable, skip this investigator and note it in the report.

Cost Optimization Rules (MANDATORY):

  1. ALWAYS run a --dry_run before every query to estimate cost.
  2. Use _TABLE_SUFFIX to filter by date range and minimize scanned data.
  3. Only SELECT the columns you need.
  4. Add a LIMIT unless aggregating.
# Template: safe BigQuery query for PushEvents to OWNER/REPO
bq query --use_legacy_sql=false --dry_run "
SELECT created_at, actor.login, payload.commits, payload.before, payload.head,
       payload.size, payload.distinct_size
FROM \`githubarchive.month.*\`
WHERE _TABLE_SUFFIX BETWEEN 'YYYYMM' AND 'YYYYMM'
  AND type = 'PushEvent'
  AND repo.name = 'OWNER/REPO'
LIMIT 1000
"
# If cost is acceptable, re-run without --dry_run

# Detect force-pushes: zero-distinct_size PushEvents mean commits were force-erased
# payload.distinct_size = 0 AND payload.size > 0 → force push indicator

# Check for deleted branch events
bq query --use_legacy_sql=false "
SELECT created_at, actor.login, payload.ref, payload.ref_type
FROM \`githubarchive.month.*\`
WHERE _TABLE_SUFFIX BETWEEN 'YYYYMM' AND 'YYYYMM'
  AND type = 'DeleteEvent'
  AND repo.name = 'OWNER/REPO'
LIMIT 200
"

Evidence to collect:

  • Force-push events (payload.size > 0, payload.distinct_size = 0)
  • DeleteEvents for branches/tags
  • WorkflowRunEvents for suspicious CI/CD automation
  • PushEvents that precede a "gap" in the git log (evidence of rewrite)

Reference: See github-archive-guide.md for all 12 event types and query patterns.


Investigator 5: IOC Enrichment Investigator

ROLE BOUNDARY: You enrich EXISTING IOCs from Phase 1 using passive public sources ONLY. Do not execute any code from the target repository.

Actions:

  • For each commit SHA: attempt recovery via direct GitHub URL (github.com/OWNER/REPO/commit/SHA.patch)
  • For each domain/IP: check passive DNS, WHOIS records (via web_extract on public WHOIS services)
  • For each package name: check npm/PyPI for matching malicious package reports
  • For each actor username: check GitHub profile, contribution history, account age
  • Recover force-pushed commits using 3 methods (see recovery-techniques.md)

Phase 3: Evidence Consolidation

After all investigators complete:

  1. Run python SKILL_DIR/scripts/evidence-store.py --store evidence.json list to see all collected evidence.
  2. For each piece of evidence, verify the content_sha256 hash matches the original source.
  3. Group evidence by:
    • Timeline: Sort all timestamped evidence chronologically
    • Actor: Group by GitHub handle or email
    • IOC: Link evidence to the IOC it relates to
  4. Identify discrepancies: items present in one source but absent in another (key deletion indicators).
  5. Flag evidence as [VERIFIED] (confirmed from 2+ independent sources) or [UNVERIFIED] (single source only).

Phase 4: Hypothesis Formation

A hypothesis must:

  • State a specific claim (e.g., "Actor X force-pushed to BRANCH on DATE to erase commit SHA")
  • Cite at least 2 evidence IDs that support it (EV-XXXX, EV-YYYY)
  • Identify what evidence would disprove it
  • Be labeled [HYPOTHESIS] until validated

Common hypothesis templates (see investigation-templates.md):

  • Maintainer Compromise: legitimate account used post-takeover to inject malicious code
  • Dependency Confusion: package name squatting to intercept installs
  • CI/CD Injection: malicious workflow changes to run code during builds
  • Typosquatting: near-identical package name targeting misspellers
  • Credential Leak: token/key accidentally committed then force-pushed to erase

For each hypothesis, spawn a delegate_task sub-agent to attempt to find disconfirming evidence before confirming.


Phase 5: Hypothesis Validation

The validator sub-agent MUST mechanically check:

  1. For each hypothesis, extract all cited evidence IDs.
  2. Verify each ID exists in evidence.json (hard failure if any ID is missing → hypothesis rejected as potentially fabricated).
  3. Verify each [VERIFIED] piece of evidence was confirmed from 2+ sources.
  4. Check logical consistency: does the timeline depicted by the evidence support the hypothesis?
  5. Check for alternative explanations: could the same evidence pattern arise from a benign cause?

Output:

  • VALIDATED: All evidence cited, verified, logically consistent, no plausible alternative explanation.
  • INCONCLUSIVE: Evidence supports hypothesis but alternative explanations exist or evidence is insufficient.
  • REJECTED: Missing evidence IDs, unverified evidence cited as fact, logical inconsistency detected.

Rejected hypotheses feed back into Phase 4 for refinement (max 3 iterations).


Phase 6: Final Report Generation

Populate investigation-report.md using the template in forensic-report.md.

Mandatory sections:

  • Executive Summary: one-paragraph verdict (Compromised / Clean / Inconclusive) with confidence level
  • Timeline: chronological reconstruction of all significant events with evidence citations
  • Validated Hypotheses: each with status and supporting evidence IDs
  • Evidence Registry: table of all EV-XXXX entries with source, type, and verification status
  • IOC List: all extracted and enriched Indicators of Compromise
  • Chain of Custody: how evidence was collected, from what sources, at what timestamps
  • Recommendations: immediate mitigations if compromise detected; monitoring recommendations

Report rules:

  • Every factual claim must have at least one [EV-XXXX] citation
  • Executive Summary must state confidence level (High / Medium / Low)
  • All secrets/credentials must be redacted to [REDACTED]

Phase 7: Completion

  1. Run final evidence count: python SKILL_DIR/scripts/evidence-store.py --store evidence.json list
  2. Archive the full investigation directory.
  3. If compromise is confirmed:
    • List immediate mitigations (rotate credentials, pin dependency hashes, notify affected users)
    • Identify affected versions/packages
    • Note disclosure obligations (if a public package: coordinate with the package registry)
  4. Present the final investigation-report.md to the user.

Ethical Use Guidelines

This skill is designed for defensive security investigation — protecting open-source software from supply chain attacks. It must not be used for:

  • Harassment or stalking of contributors or maintainers
  • Doxing — correlating GitHub activity to real identities for malicious purposes
  • Competitive intelligence — investigating proprietary or internal repositories without authorization
  • False accusations — publishing investigation results without validated evidence (see anti-hallucination guardrails)

Investigations should be conducted with the principle of minimal intrusion: collect only the evidence necessary to validate or refute the hypothesis. When publishing results, follow responsible disclosure practices and coordinate with affected maintainers before public disclosure.

If the investigation reveals a genuine compromise, follow the coordinated vulnerability disclosure process:

  1. Notify the repository maintainers privately first
  2. Allow reasonable time for remediation (typically 90 days)
  3. Coordinate with package registries (npm, PyPI, etc.) if published packages are affected
  4. File a CVE if appropriate

API Rate Limiting

GitHub REST API enforces rate limits that will interrupt large investigations if not managed.

Authenticated requests: 5,000/hour (requires GITHUB_TOKEN env var or gh CLI auth) Unauthenticated requests: 60/hour (unusable for investigations)

Best practices:

  • Always authenticate: export GITHUB_TOKEN=ghp_... or use gh CLI (auto-authenticates)
  • Use conditional requests (If-None-Match / If-Modified-Since headers) to avoid consuming quota on unchanged data
  • For paginated endpoints, fetch all pages in sequence — don't parallelize against the same endpoint
  • Check X-RateLimit-Remaining header; if below 100, pause for X-RateLimit-Reset timestamp
  • BigQuery has its own quotas (10 TiB/day free tier) — always dry-run first
  • Wayback Machine CDX API: no formal rate limit, but be courteous (1-2 req/sec max)

If rate-limited mid-investigation, record the partial results in the evidence store and note the limitation in the report.


Reference Materials

  • github-archive-guide.md — BigQuery queries, CDX API, 12 event types
  • evidence-types.md — IOC taxonomy, evidence source types, observation types
  • recovery-techniques.md — Recovering deleted commits, PRs, issues
  • investigation-templates.md — Pre-built hypothesis templates per attack type
  • evidence-store.py — CLI tool for managing the evidence JSON store
  • forensic-report.md — Structured report template

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.