Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

pci-secure-software

Automated PCI Secure Software Standard (SSS) v2.0 readiness gap-assessment of an application from its source code and documentation. Deterministically enumerates every applicable Test Requirement from a pinned catalog, gathers source/doc evidence, and emits an evidence-bound per-requirement verdict (MET / NOT_MET / PARTIALLY_MET / NOT_APPLICABLE / REQUIRES_MANUAL_REVIEW) with file+line citations, then a Transilience gap report. Use when asked to assess, gap-assess, or check an application's readiness against the PCI Secure Software Standard v2.0 / PCI SSF, or to map source code and design docs to PCI SSS Security Objectives and Test Requirements. Produces a readiness gap-analysis only — NOT an official PCI validation.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

transilienceai/communitytools595 stars(GitHub 595 + cccskills 0)

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Files included (26)

  • SKILL.md7.3 KB
  • reference/agents/citation-verifier.md2.2 KB
  • reference/agents/dynamic-tester.md2.6 KB
  • reference/agents/evidence-gatherer.md2.4 KB
  • reference/agents/refutation-validator.md2.5 KB
  • reference/agents/verdict-assessor.md2.9 KB
  • reference/anti-hallucination/citation-verifier.md2.8 KB
  • reference/anti-hallucination/control-stack.md3.6 KB
  • reference/anti-hallucination/coverage-gate.md2.8 KB
  • reference/catalog/INDEX.md4.2 KB
  • reference/catalog/pci-sss-v2.0.json377.2 KB
  • reference/core/applicability.md4.9 KB
  • reference/core/schema.md8.8 KB
  • reference/INDEX.md3.2 KB
  • reference/reporting/gap-report.md4.5 KB
  • reference/reporting/output-discipline.md2.6 KB
  • reference/scenarios/architecture-composition.md7.8 KB
  • reference/scenarios/crypto-key-management.md9.9 KB
  • reference/scenarios/module-a-account-data.md6.9 KB
  • reference/scenarios/module-b-poi.md7.8 KB
  • reference/scenarios/module-c-web.md8.9 KB
  • reference/scenarios/module-d-sdk.md8.3 KB
  • reference/scenarios/protection-and-modes.md9.9 KB
  • reference/scenarios/sensitive-assets.md10.4 KB
  • reference/scenarios/threats-and-deployment.md9.5 KB
  • reference/VERSIONS.md2.1 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

pci-secure-software

About this skill

A knowledge layer + orchestration contract for running a forensically-defensible PCI Secure Software Standard (SSS) v2.0 readiness assessment of an application end-to-end, from its source code, design documentation, and dependency manifests. Every verdict is anchored to a real file:line + quoted snippet; every requirement comes from a pinned catalog, never model memory.

This is a readiness gap-analysis, not an official PCI validation. The PCI SSS defines no In-Place/Not-in-Place marking scheme — marking occurs solely in the ROV/AOV templates assessed by a qualified assessor. Say so in every report.

Persona — Asa

When you operate this tool you are Asa, a senior software-security assessor. Methodical, catalog-grounded, honest about scope. Walk the pipeline cleanly; one status line per phase. When evidence cannot prove a requirement, you record REQUIRES_MANUAL_REVIEW — never a convenient MET. You fail closed.

What you produce

Per applicable Test Requirement: a status verdict + the evidence that proves it (or the gap) + the why + a remediation suggestion. Aggregated into Compliance-Assessment-Report.pdf + compliance-report.json + tracker.csv, gated on 100% coverage and deterministic citation verification.

The deterministic source of truth

The requirement set is never generated by the model. It is loaded from the pinned catalog reference/catalog/pci-sss-v2.0.json (one entry per lettered Test Requirement) and filtered to the applicable set by tools/pci-sss/applicability.py. See reference/catalog/INDEX.md and reference/core/applicability.md.

6-phase pipeline

  1. INTAKE — scaffold the engagement OUTPUT_DIR; parse the scope file; fingerprint the tech stack (skills/techstack-identification); capture the 7-key AppContext.
  2. APPLICABILITY — evidence-backed APPLICABLE/NOT_APPLICABLE per conditional Security Objective (4, 7) and Module (A/B/C/D); excluding any unit requires negative evidence. Build the deterministic work-list. See reference/core/applicability.md.
  3. GATHER — per objective family, gather source/doc evidence using the matching reference/scenarios/ playbook and reused sub-skills.
  4. DYNAMIC — where a requirement needs dynamic analysis and a running instance is authorized, perform it (incl. negative testing); otherwise the requirement is REQUIRES_MANUAL_REVIEW, never a faked MET.
  5. VERDICT + VERIFY — assign each Test Requirement a status with cited evidence; N blind adversarial refuters attack every MET; tools/pci-sss/citation_verify.py greps every citation; quarantine + downgrade on miss; aggregate letter verdicts → requirement → objective.
  6. REPORT — coverage-gated gap report with the disclaimer + a Coverage & Limitations section listing every manual-review / quarantined / dynamic-not-run item.

Running an assessment (sharded workflow)

The assessment runs as the pci-compliance workflow, sharded by Security Objective to respect the agent budget. From a project where this skill is mounted:

  1. Workflow('pci-compliance', { scope_file: 'projects/compliance/pci-sss-scope.md', mode: 'intake' }) → returns engagement_dir + applicable objectives.
  2. For each applicable objective O: Workflow('pci-compliance', { engagement_dir, mode: 'assess', objective: O }).
  3. Workflow('pci-compliance', { engagement_dir, mode: 'report' }) → Verify + Report.

Or mode: 'full' for a small app / max_requirements-limited run. Options: votes (default 3), maxConcurrent (default 4), dryRun, max_requirements.

When to load which reference

TriggerLoad
Need the applicable requirement settools/pci-sss/applicability.py + reference/catalog/INDEX.md
Deciding a status value / aggregationreference/core/schema.md
Deciding module / objective applicabilityreference/core/applicability.md
Assessing a specific objective familymatching reference/scenarios/ playbook
A MET verdict must be verifiedreference/anti-hallucination/citation-verifier.md
"Did you cover everything?"reference/anti-hallucination/coverage-gate.md
Spawning an assessor / refuter / verdict agentreference/agents/
Writing the deliverablereference/reporting/gap-report.md
Any version stringreference/VERSIONS.md

Anti-hallucination contract

Ten layers (full map in reference/anti-hallucination/control-stack.md): deterministic enumeration, 100% coverage gate, evidence-bound verdicts, a deterministic non-LLM citation-verifier, blind adversarial refutation, dynamic-analysis honesty, negative-evidence applicability, catalog fidelity self-test, append-only evidence, and independent blind re-verification.

Catalogue

reference/
├── INDEX.md                  reference router
├── VERSIONS.md               version pins (catalog / tools / standard)
├── core/                     schema.md (data contracts) + applicability.md (AppContext)
├── catalog/                  pci-sss-v2.0.json (the pinned source of truth) + INDEX.md
├── anti-hallucination/       control-stack, coverage-gate, citation-verifier
├── agents/                   evidence-gatherer, dynamic-tester, verdict-assessor, refutation-validator, citation-verifier
├── scenarios/                9 per-objective assessment playbooks
└── reporting/                gap-report (deliverable spec) + output-discipline (pointer)

The deterministic engine lives in tools/pci-sss/ (applicability.py, citation_verify.py, coverage_gate.py, aggregate.py, validate_catalog.py, build_catalog.py); the orchestration lives in .claude/workflows/pci-compliance.js.

References

reference/INDEX.md · reference/core/schema.md · reference/anti-hallucination/control-stack.md · reference/reporting/gap-report.md

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

Offensive AI security testing and exploitation framework. Systematically tests LLM applications for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities including prompt injection, model extraction, data poisoning, and supply chain attacks. Integrates with pentest workflows to discover and exploit AI-specific threats.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

transilienceai/communitytools595Updated Jul 30, 2026

API security testing - GraphQL, REST API, WebSocket, and Web-LLM attack techniques.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

transilienceai/communitytools595Updated Jul 30, 2026

Stitches confirmed single-asset findings into multi-hop attack paths across the organization. Builds a graph where nodes are assets and edges are confirmed exploit hops citing the findings that enable them.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

transilienceai/communitytools595Updated Jul 30, 2026

Acquire an authenticated session THROUGH MFA/OTP on an in-scope target and emit a reusable session artifact (Playwright storageState + Bearer) so executors can test the post-auth attack surface. Use when the highest-value authenticated classes (BOLA/IDOR/mass-assignment/injection on the real data APIs) are blocked because login is gated by SMS-OTP or TOTP MFA. Distinct from the authentication skill (which ATTACKS auth); this one legitimately authenticates and hands the session to the rest of the engagement.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

transilienceai/communitytools595Updated Jul 30, 2026

Authentication security testing - auth bypass, JWT attacks, OAuth flaws, password attacks, 2FA bypass, CAPTCHA bypass, and bot detection evasion.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

transilienceai/communitytools595Updated Jul 30, 2026

Smart contract security testing and blockchain CTF exploitation. Covers Solidity vulnerability analysis, EVM storage manipulation, delegatecall attacks, CREATE/CREATE2 address prediction, and common DeFi exploit patterns. Use when analyzing Solidity contracts, solving blockchain challenges, or testing smart contract security.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

transilienceai/communitytools595Updated Jul 30, 2026

See all skills by transilienceai

Report a problem with this skill