Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

verify-fix

Verify whether a reported vulnerability is fixed in the current code without changing repository files. Trace the original attack path, examine possible bypasses and legitimate behavior, and return an evidence-based verdict for each supplied finding.

OriginalShow the original description

Use only when the user explicitly requests verification that a security fix remediates a reported vulnerability. Do not invoke automatically while implementing fixes, reviewing ordinary code changes, or running tests. Do not use for non-security fixes, candidate finding validation, or full repository scans.

See how to install

Good for

  • Verify remediation of a reported vulnerability
  • Check for bypasses around a security fix
  • Verify a fix after code moves or refactoring
  • Identify evidence gaps that prevent a verdict

Files included (2)

  • SKILL.md3.0 KB
  • agents/openai.yaml235 B

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Verify Fix

When to Use

Invoke this skill only for an explicit request to verify a security fix, including a direct $verify-fix invocation. A request to implement a fix or run its tests does not by itself request this skill. For other tasks, follow the user's requested workflow and response format without applying this skill's JSON result contract.

Objective

Determine whether each supplied security finding has been fixed in the current checkout. Operate in standalone verification-only mode; do not create, modify, or delete repository files, apply patches, commit changes, write artifacts, or modify issue trackers.

Assessment Method

Use ../../references/static-finding-assessment.md to identify the original attacker-controlled source, security control, sensitive sink, reachable path, trust boundary, counterevidence, and proof gaps. If the caller already supplied that reference in the prompt, use the supplied contents without reading it again.

Verification Workflow

  1. Establish the original vulnerability, its preconditions, affected security boundary, and legitimate behavior that must continue to work.
  2. Confirm the current checkout contains the affected component. Follow moved or refactored code rather than treating a missing file, removed line, or changed function name as proof of remediation.
  3. Trace the original exploit path through the current implementation and check the nearest relevant control, equivalent paths, and plausible bypasses.
  4. Run the original reproducer, focused regression checks, or legitimate-behavior checks only when they can run without modifying the repository. Preserve exact static evidence when runtime checks are unavailable.
  5. Return one result per supplied finding, in the requested order. Treat closed tickets, unrelated passing tests, and the absence of a new scan finding as insufficient proof.

Result Contract

Return exactly one JSON object:

{
  "results": [
    {
      "id": "finding-or-issue-id",
      "status": "fixed|still_vulnerable|inconclusive",
      "evidence": "specific current source, exploit, test, or proof-gap evidence"
    }
  ]
}
  • Use fixed only when evidence proves the original security boundary is closed and legitimate behavior remains intact.
  • Use still_vulnerable only when evidence proves the original vulnerable path remains reachable.
  • Use inconclusive for a repository mismatch, missing original context, unavailable relevant checks, an unproven legitimate control, or another material proof gap.

Never infer a stronger verdict by weakening the read-only boundary, substituting a different vulnerability, or hiding missing evidence.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Assess a fixed patch or pull request diff before merging. Trace affected behavior, evaluate regression risks, tests, and recovery options, then provide an evidence-based recommendation and advisory automatic-merge eligibility without modifying or merging the patch.

  • Assess a generated patch before merging
  • Trace how a pull request affects production behavior
  • Evaluate tests and rollback options
openai/codex-security11.1KUpdated Oct 19, 2026

Trace a security finding from an attacker’s entry point to its impact using repository evidence. Examine access, permissions, existing defenses, and counterevidence to assess severity and decide whether the finding warrants reporting.

  • Trace how an attacker could exploit a finding
  • Reassess severity against existing defenses
  • Check counterevidence before reporting
openai/codex-security11.1KUpdated Oct 19, 2026

cloud-findings

FreeSummary

Read existing findings, reports, recorded assignments, verification results, and scan status from a connected Codex Security Cloud account. Summarize available evidence and distinguish missing information from confirmed outcomes without changing Cloud data.

  • Inspect a finding from its Cloud link
  • List findings by severity or recorded assignee
  • Review saved validation and patch check reports
openai/codex-security11.1KUpdated Oct 19, 2026

Run repeated, independent security reviews of an entire repository or a selected directory. The skill combines validated findings and coverage records into a final report, helping reduce variation between individual reviews.

  • Reviewing an entire repository through repeated security audits
  • Running an intensive review of a selected directory
  • Combining validated findings and coverage into one report
openai/codex-security11.1KUpdated Oct 19, 2026

Create or review SECURITY.md guidance so Codex Security understands what to examine, which protections must hold, and what is excluded. Compare existing policies with repository evidence and preview proposed changes before writing.

  • Define security review scope for a repository
  • Document required security protections
  • Check whether existing guidance matches the code
openai/codex-security11.1KUpdated Oct 19, 2026

Inspect repository code or code changes for plausible security vulnerabilities. The skill records candidate issues with affected locations, attacker-controlled inputs, failing safeguards, and possible impact, preserving the evidence needed for later validation.

  • Finding security issues that may arise from code changes
  • Investigating vulnerability candidates in repository code
  • Organizing source evidence for later validation
openai/codex-security11.1KUpdated Oct 19, 2026

See all skills by openai

Report a problem with this skill