orbyn-security-remediation
Skill4 starsChanged 11 days agoMITView on GitHub
Resolve existing security findings from a threat model, audit or scanner record: classify, fix at the owning boundary, add a preventive check and hand back for verification, without starting a scan. Use orbyn-security-audit to find new ones.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- kinqsradio/orbyn-fullstack-skillsword for word, first seen Oct 25, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- kinqsradio/orbyn-fullstack-skills★ 4100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository41 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- architectSkill
- arenaSkill
- automate-meSkill
- figure-it-outSkill
- howSkill
- interrogateSkill
- language-best-practicesSkill
- motion-matchSkill
- orbyn-ai-applicationSkill
- orbyn-backend-designSkill
- orbyn-ci-designSkill
- orbyn-content-designSkill
- orbyn-data-migrationSkill
- orbyn-planSkill
- orbyn-researchSkill
- orbyn-security-auditSkill
- orbyn-setupSkill
- orbyn-skill-creatorSkill
- orbyn-stack-selectionSkill
- orbyn-ui-designSkill
- orbyn-upstream-reviewSkill
- orbyn-workflowSkill
- orbyn-worktreeSkill
- product-illustrationSkill
- rea-analysis-optimizationSkill
- rea-changelog-updateSkill
- rea-ci-tests-auditSkill
- rea-tool-designSkill
- reflectSkill
- reverse-engineer-anythingSkill
- show-me-your-workSkill
- social-contentSkill
- social-previewSkill
- stack-diagramSkill
- tddSkill
- technical-illustrationSkill
- unslopSkill
- whySkill
The file
Files
Existing security findings
Never start, restart or rejoin a hosted security scan, and never begin a new audit, unless the user explicitly requests it. Ordinary review, checkpoint qualification and local QA permission do not authorize one. Never launch a scan to close a remediation ticket. Run this work on the lead tier, never the scout tier.
Where this sits
Security work runs threat model, audit, remediation, verification. This skill is stage three, and it hands back for stage four.
- In: a finding with a stable id: a
confirmedaudit finding, a saved scanner record, or a threat from a threat model that the person accepts as real. A baredesign_hypothesisis not yet a defect: send it to orbyn-security-audit for independent verification, or to the person as a design decision. - Out: a ledger and a patch, with each finding
patchedand a named check. Notclosed. - Back: a fresh verifier in the audit skill re-reads each patch against the invariant and the threat's own check, and returns
closed,still openorregression. You do not grade your own fix. When the change is small, the owning test passes and the person says that is enough, record that choice and close it.
Method
- Read saved findings and keep the original id exactly. The ledger's id for a finding is its
fingerprint; for one that came from a threat model it istm:T<n>ortm:T<n>/<slug>, and a threat the person accepted directly istm:T<n>. Copy that string unchanged into every ledger row, check name and handback, and never renumber or shorten it. Keep the scan or audit id, revision, outcome and coverage. A canceled or failed scan is partial evidence, never a clean qualification. - Consolidate duplicate causes, keeping every original id in the task ledger.
- Classify each finding by tracing its reported path through current source: confirmed, already safe, duplicate, intentional with a documented invariant, or unresolved. A scanner label is not a verified exploit.
- State the violated invariant and trace attacker-controlled input to the real authority or effect boundary. Check current callers, alternate paths and the legitimate behaviour that must stay.
- Fix the owner with validation, authorization, atomicity, resource limits or compatibility as the invariant needs. Preserve least privilege. Keep secrets and user content out of logs, fixtures and reports. Read conditional finding patterns only when the finding involves those systems.
- Test the reported trigger, an alternate path to the same effect, and a legitimate control, when testing is authorized. Add the preventive check to the owning tests, or to the authorized skill scope.
- Hand back in a Markdown ledger with one row per id above: affected source, invariant, patch, focused checks run with results, checks not run, and remaining limits. Keep unavailable checks open.
Worked failure
Finding tm:T1: a revoked share link keeps streaming to a recipient who connected before revocation. The first patch rechecks the link when a stream opens. The reported trigger, a new connection after revocation, now fails, and the ledger says patched. The verifier runs the threat's own check: it opens a stream first, then revokes. Frames still arrive, because the already-open stream never rechecks. The result is still open.
The corrected patch rechecks the link on each frame and closes the stream on revoke. The ledger adds the alternate-path test (connected then revoked) beside the reported-trigger test and the authorized-reader control. The lesson is step 6: a trigger passing proves one path.
Ownership
Patches are written by the security_engineer role at lead tier, and a fresh security_verifier at lead tier verifies them. Preserve unrelated work and candidate provenance. Findings from a private threat model or audit are sensitive: keep them in the run folder and the ledger, and do not paste them into public issues, commits or pull requests. Follow project instructions and scope for testing and delivery scope.
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.

