agentleFS
rade-nugrohorade-nugroho/Agentic-Enteprises-Skill/ai-adversarial-robustness-engineer/SKILL.md

ai-adversarial-robustness-engineer

Skill9 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Adversarial robustness engineering for ML/AI—evasion, poisoning, extraction, membership-inference threat models; robust training, sanitization, detectors; ASR/certified evals; lab model attacks; data-pipeline integrity; production I/O guardrails (classical ML and LLM/multimodal). Use for adversarial examples, robustness suites, poison audits, deploy guardrails—not LLM app red team (ai-redteam), governance (ai-risk-governance), safety classifier R&D (ml-research-engineer-safeguards), safeguard serving (ml-infrastructure-engineer-safeguards), privacy research (privacy-research-engineer-safeguards), AppSec pentest (penetration-tester).

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 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.

  • 0

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Run lab/staging attack campaigns on model endpoints, APIs, or batch inference (authorized only)

    line 20
  2. Distinctive:

    Document evasion, poisoning, extraction, and inference threats with realistic preconditions.

    line 63

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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

AI Adversarial Robustness Engineer

When to Use

  • Define threat models for evasion, poisoning, extraction, and inference attacks on ML/LLM systems
  • Design robustness evaluation suites — ASR, perturbation budgets, slice metrics, regression harnesses
  • Implement engineering defenses — adversarial training, input sanitization, detectors, ensembles
  • Run lab/staging attack campaigns on model endpoints, APIs, or batch inference (authorized only)
  • Audit training data and pipelines for poisoning, backdoors, and supply-chain tampering
  • Specify production guardrails — input validation, output filtering, rate limits, anomaly monitors
  • Compare certified vs empirical robustness claims and document limitations for stakeholders
  • Investigate robustness regressions after model updates, fine-tunes, or data refreshes

When NOT to Use

  • Broad LLM product red-team engagements, jailbreak policy, or ROE → ai-redteam
  • AI governance, risk tiers, model cards, or compliance mapping → ai-risk-governance
  • Safety classifier research, harm benchmarks, and moderation model training → ml-research-engineer-safeguards
  • Safeguard gateways, GPU serving, canary routing, and inference SLOs → ml-infrastructure-engineer-safeguards
  • PII, memorization, and privacy leakage research → privacy-research-engineer-safeguards
  • Building production RAG/agents or LLM features → ai-engineer
  • General literature survey without robustness scope → ai-researcher
  • Network/web/AppSec penetration testing (non-model) → penetration-tester, web-pentester

Related skills

NeedSkill
LLM jailbreak and app-surface red teamai-redteam
Governance sign-off and risk tiersai-risk-governance
Safety classifier R&D and harm evalsml-research-engineer-safeguards
Production safeguard serving pathml-infrastructure-engineer-safeguards
Privacy and extraction researchprivacy-research-engineer-safeguards
Production LLM/RAG implementationai-engineer
General ML research methodologyai-researcher
Pipeline and artifact securitydevsecops

Core Workflows

1. Scope and threat model

  1. Identify assets: weights, embeddings, training data, inference API, logs
  2. Classify attacker goals and capabilities (white/gray/black box, budget, offline/online)
  3. Map attacks to lifecycle stage (data, train, deploy, monitor)
  4. Agree evaluation environment — no prod customer data without approval

See references/adversarial_robustness_scope.md.

2. Attack taxonomy and scenarios

Document evasion, poisoning, extraction, and inference threats with realistic preconditions.

See references/threat_models_and_attack_taxonomy.md.

3. Metrics and benchmarks

Select perturbation norms, ASR definitions, slices, and baselines; pre-register pass/fail gates.

See references/evaluation_metrics_and_benchmarks.md.

4. Defenses and mitigations

Choose layered controls: robust training, preprocessing, detectors, ensembles, and operational limits.

See references/defenses_and_mitigations.md.

5. Red-team campaigns on models

Plan authorized attacks in lab/staging; capture reproduction packages and severity.

See references/red_team_campaigns_on_models.md.

6. Production guardrails and monitoring

Translate findings into input/output policies, drift monitors, and incident playbooks.

See references/production_guardrails_and_monitoring.md.

Outputs

  • Threat model — assets, adversaries, attack paths, assumptions
  • Robustness eval spec — datasets, budgets, metrics, baselines, acceptance criteria
  • Results report — ASR/slice tables, representative failures, confidence limits
  • Defense plan — prioritized mitigations with residual risk
  • Campaign log — authorized tests, payloads, reproduction steps (lab/staging)
  • Guardrail spec — validation rules, monitors, rollback triggers

Principles

  • Authorized testing only — written scope; never attack production without approval
  • Empirical over claims — measure ASR and slices; treat certified bounds as supplementary
  • Defense in depth — no single control; combine model, input, and operational layers
  • Reproducibility — version data, model hash, attack code, and random seeds
  • Honest limits — document threat-model mismatch and adaptive attackers

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.