agentleFS
rschuftrschuft/ai-frontend-skill-packs/skills/security-authentication-and-sessions/SKILL.md

security-authentication-and-sessions

Skill4 starsChanged 5 days agoMITView on GitHub

Assess and remediate authentication, sessions, identity tokens, mfa, federated sign-in and logout in frontend and associated web services. Use for login, session renewal or expiry, cookies, MFA, OAuth, OIDC, JWT, account recovery.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Read references/playbook.md and the relevant ASVS chapter entries.

    line 17
  2. Very specific:

    Test normal and denied paths with synthetic or approved fixtures, documenting exact methods and evidence.

    line 20
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not confuse OAuth authorization tokens with authenticated browser sessions.

    line 25
  4. Distinctive:

    Do not recommend inventing cryptographic protocols or custom token validation.

    line 26
  5. Distinctive:

    No active probing of live systems, aggressive scanning, credential handling or cross-tenant requests without explicit authorization.

    line 28

≈ “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

Authentication, session and federation risks

Scope

Use when the task concerns authentication, sessions, identity tokens, mfa, federated sign-in and logout. Common triggers include login, session renewal or expiry, cookies, MFA, OAuth, OIDC, JWT, account recovery. Do not classify unrelated symptoms as this category or expand the authorized scope. A client-side implementation may not reveal server-side enforcement.

ASVS 5.0.0 chapters: V6, V7, V9, V10. For exact requirement wording and levels consult ../security-diagnose/references/asvs/5.0.0/index.json and the version-pinned official ASVS source. Do not treat the index as the full standard. The local reference is references/playbook.md.

Procedure

  1. Establish the user action, attacker/actor, sensitive asset, trust boundary, affected runtime, and actual observed evidence.
  2. Read references/playbook.md and the relevant ASVS chapter entries. Resolve baseline using ../security-diagnose/references/standard-selection.md (explicit task > project policy > planning fallback).
  3. Differentiate the underlying cause from superficial symptoms; select a specific applicable requirement only after checking the authoritative source text.
  4. Implement or recommend the smallest verified control with the project’s existing security architecture. Prefer server-side enforcement when the failure crosses the browser trust boundary.
  5. Test normal and denied paths with synthetic or approved fixtures, documenting exact methods and evidence. Record residual unknowns; route broad assessments to security-review, implementation to security-build and retesting to security-validate.

Failure discipline

  • Front-end hiding of a sign-in button is not authentication.
  • Do not confuse OAuth authorization tokens with authenticated browser sessions.
  • Do not recommend inventing cryptographic protocols or custom token validation.

No active probing of live systems, aggressive scanning, credential handling or cross-tenant requests without explicit authorization. Never report security certification from this skill alone.

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.