본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

agent-owasp-compliance

Review an AI agent codebase against ten OWASP ASI security risk areas. Examine tool permissions, input validation, identity checks, audit logs, and other controls, then summarize coverage, gaps, and recommended improvements in a report.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

원문원문 설명 보기

Check any AI agent codebase against the OWASP Agentic Security Initiative (ASI) Top 10 risks. Use this skill when: - Evaluating an agent system's security posture before production deployment - Running a compliance check against OWASP ASI 2026 standards - Mapping existing security controls to the 10 agentic risks - Generating a compliance report for security review or audit - Comparing agent framework security features against the standard - Any request like "is my agent OWASP compliant?", "check ASI compliance", or "agentic security audit"

설치 방법 보기

이럴 때 유용합니다

  • Reviewing agent security before production deployment
  • Mapping existing controls to ten security risk areas
  • Preparing findings for a security review or audit
  • Comparing security controls across agent frameworks

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md11.6 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Agent OWASP ASI Compliance Check

Evaluate AI agent systems against the OWASP Agentic Security Initiative (ASI) Top 10 — the industry standard for agent security posture.

Overview

The OWASP ASI Top 10 defines the critical security risks specific to autonomous AI agents — not LLMs, not chatbots, but agents that call tools, access systems, and act on behalf of users. This skill checks whether your agent implementation addresses each risk.

Codebase → Scan for each ASI control:
  ASI-01: Prompt Injection Protection
  ASI-02: Tool Use Governance
  ASI-03: Agency Boundaries
  ASI-04: Escalation Controls
  ASI-05: Trust Boundary Enforcement
  ASI-06: Logging & Audit
  ASI-07: Identity Management
  ASI-08: Policy Integrity
  ASI-09: Supply Chain Verification
  ASI-10: Behavioral Monitoring
→ Generate Compliance Report (X/10 covered)

The 10 Risks

RiskNameWhat to Look For
ASI-01Prompt InjectionInput validation before tool calls, not just LLM output filtering
ASI-02Insecure Tool UseTool allowlists, argument validation, no raw shell execution
ASI-03Excessive AgencyCapability boundaries, scope limits, principle of least privilege
ASI-04Unauthorized EscalationPrivilege checks before sensitive operations, no self-promotion
ASI-05Trust Boundary ViolationTrust verification between agents, signed credentials, no blind trust
ASI-06Insufficient LoggingStructured audit trail for all tool calls, tamper-evident logs
ASI-07Insecure IdentityCryptographic agent identity, not just string names
ASI-08Policy BypassDeterministic policy enforcement, no LLM-based permission checks
ASI-09Supply Chain IntegritySigned plugins/tools, integrity verification, dependency auditing
ASI-10Behavioral AnomalyDrift detection, circuit breakers, kill switch capability

Check ASI-01: Prompt Injection Protection

Look for input validation that runs before tool execution, not after LLM generation.

import re
from pathlib import Path

def check_asi_01(project_path: str) -> dict:
    """ASI-01: Is user input validated before reaching tool execution?"""
    positive_patterns = [
        "input_validation", "validate_input", "sanitize",
        "classify_intent", "prompt_injection", "threat_detect",
        "PolicyEvaluator", "PolicyEngine", "check_content",
    ]
    negative_patterns = [
        r"eval\(", r"exec\(", r"subprocess\.run\(.*shell=True",
        r"os\.system\(",
    ]

    # Scan Python files for signals
    root = Path(project_path)
    positive_matches = []
    negative_matches = []

    for py_file in root.rglob("*.py"):
        content = py_file.read_text(errors="ignore")
        for pattern in positive_patterns:
            if pattern in content:
                positive_matches.append(f"{py_file.name}: {pattern}")
        for pattern in negative_patterns:
            if re.search(pattern, content):
                negative_matches.append(f"{py_file.name}: {pattern}")

    positive_found = len(positive_matches) > 0
    negative_found = len(negative_matches) > 0

    return {
        "risk": "ASI-01",
        "name": "Prompt Injection",
        "status": "pass" if positive_found and not negative_found else "fail",
        "controls_found": positive_matches,
        "vulnerabilities": negative_matches,
        "recommendation": "Add input validation before tool execution, not just output filtering"
    }

What passing looks like:

# GOOD: Validate before tool execution
result = policy_engine.evaluate(user_input)
if result.action == "deny":
    return "Request blocked by policy"
tool_result = await execute_tool(validated_input)

What failing looks like:

# BAD: User input goes directly to tool
tool_result = await execute_tool(user_input)  # No validation

Check ASI-02: Insecure Tool Use

Verify tools have allowlists, argument validation, and no unrestricted execution.

What to search for:

  • Tool registration with explicit allowlists (not open-ended)
  • Argument validation before tool execution
  • No subprocess.run(shell=True) with user-controlled input
  • No eval() or exec() on agent-generated code without sandbox

Passing example:

ALLOWED_TOOLS = {"search", "read_file", "create_ticket"}

def execute_tool(name: str, args: dict):
    if name not in ALLOWED_TOOLS:
        raise PermissionError(f"Tool '{name}' not in allowlist")
    # validate args...
    return tools[name](**validated_args)

Check ASI-03: Excessive Agency

Verify agent capabilities are bounded — not open-ended.

What to search for:

  • Explicit capability lists or execution rings
  • Scope limits on what the agent can access
  • Principle of least privilege applied to tool access

Failing: Agent has access to all tools by default. Passing: Agent capabilities defined as a fixed allowlist, unknown tools denied.


Check ASI-04: Unauthorized Escalation

Verify agents cannot promote their own privileges.

What to search for:

  • Privilege level checks before sensitive operations
  • No self-promotion patterns (agent changing its own trust score or role)
  • Escalation requires external attestation (human or SRE witness)

Failing: Agent can modify its own configuration or permissions. Passing: Privilege changes require out-of-band approval (e.g., Ring 0 requires SRE attestation).


Check ASI-05: Trust Boundary Violation

In multi-agent systems, verify that agents verify each other's identity before accepting instructions.

What to search for:

  • Agent identity verification (DIDs, signed tokens, API keys)
  • Trust score checks before accepting delegated tasks
  • No blind trust of inter-agent messages
  • Delegation narrowing (child scope <= parent scope)

Passing example:

def accept_task(sender_id: str, task: dict):
    trust = trust_registry.get_trust(sender_id)
    if not trust.meets_threshold(0.7):
        raise PermissionError(f"Agent {sender_id} trust too low: {trust.current()}")
    if not verify_signature(task, sender_id):
        raise SecurityError("Task signature verification failed")
    return process_task(task)

Check ASI-06: Insufficient Logging

Verify all agent actions produce structured, tamper-evident audit entries.

What to search for:

  • Structured logging for every tool call (not just print statements)
  • Audit entries include: timestamp, agent ID, tool name, args, result, policy decision
  • Append-only or hash-chained log format
  • Logs stored separately from agent-writable directories

Failing: Agent actions logged via print() or not logged at all. Passing: Structured JSONL audit trail with chain hashes, exported to secure storage.


Check ASI-07: Insecure Identity

Verify agents have cryptographic identity, not just string names.

Failing indicators:

  • Agent identified by agent_name = "my-agent" (string only)
  • No authentication between agents
  • Shared credentials across agents

Passing indicators:

  • DID-based identity (did:web:, did:key:)
  • Ed25519 or similar cryptographic signing
  • Per-agent credentials with rotation
  • Identity bound to specific capabilities

Check ASI-08: Policy Bypass

Verify policy enforcement is deterministic — not LLM-based.

What to search for:

  • Policy evaluation uses deterministic logic (YAML rules, code predicates)
  • No LLM calls in the enforcement path
  • Policy checks cannot be skipped or overridden by the agent
  • Fail-closed behavior (if policy check errors, action is denied)

Failing: Agent decides its own permissions via prompt ("Am I allowed to...?"). Passing: PolicyEvaluator.evaluate() returns allow/deny in <0.1ms, no LLM involved.


Check ASI-09: Supply Chain Integrity

Verify agent plugins and tools have integrity verification.

What to search for:

  • INTEGRITY.json or manifest files with SHA-256 hashes
  • Signature verification on plugin installation
  • Dependency pinning (no @latest, >= without upper bound)
  • SBOM generation

Check ASI-10: Behavioral Anomaly

Verify the system can detect and respond to agent behavioral drift.

What to search for:

  • Circuit breakers that trip on repeated failures
  • Trust score decay over time (temporal decay)
  • Kill switch or emergency stop capability
  • Anomaly detection on tool call patterns (frequency, targets, timing)

Failing: No mechanism to stop a misbehaving agent automatically. Passing: Circuit breaker trips after N failures, trust decays without activity, kill switch available.


Compliance Report Format

# OWASP ASI Compliance Report
Generated: 2026-04-01
Project: my-agent-system

## Summary: 7/10 Controls Covered

| Risk | Status | Finding |
|------|--------|---------|
| ASI-01 Prompt Injection | PASS | PolicyEngine validates input before tool calls |
| ASI-02 Insecure Tool Use | PASS | Tool allowlist enforced in governance.py |
| ASI-03 Excessive Agency | PASS | Execution rings limit capabilities |
| ASI-04 Unauthorized Escalation | PASS | Ring promotion requires attestation |
| ASI-05 Trust Boundary | FAIL | No identity verification between agents |
| ASI-06 Insufficient Logging | PASS | AuditChain with SHA-256 chain hashes |
| ASI-07 Insecure Identity | FAIL | Agents use string names, no crypto identity |
| ASI-08 Policy Bypass | PASS | Deterministic PolicyEvaluator, no LLM in path |
| ASI-09 Supply Chain | FAIL | No integrity manifests or plugin signing |
| ASI-10 Behavioral Anomaly | PASS | Circuit breakers and trust decay active |

## Critical Gaps
- ASI-05: Add agent identity verification using DIDs or signed tokens
- ASI-07: Replace string agent names with cryptographic identity
- ASI-09: Generate INTEGRITY.json manifests for all plugins

## Recommendation
Install agent-governance-toolkit for reference implementations of all 10 controls:
pip install agent-governance-toolkit

Quick Assessment Questions

Use these to rapidly assess an agent system:

  1. Does user input pass through validation before reaching any tool? (ASI-01)
  2. Is there an explicit list of what tools the agent can call? (ASI-02)
  3. Can the agent do anything, or are its capabilities bounded? (ASI-03)
  4. Can the agent promote its own privileges? (ASI-04)
  5. Do agents verify each other's identity before accepting tasks? (ASI-05)
  6. Is every tool call logged with enough detail to replay it? (ASI-06)
  7. Does each agent have a unique cryptographic identity? (ASI-07)
  8. Is policy enforcement deterministic (not LLM-based)? (ASI-08)
  9. Are plugins/tools integrity-verified before use? (ASI-09)
  10. Is there a circuit breaker or kill switch? (ASI-10)

If you answer "no" to any of these, that's a gap to address.


Related Resources

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Map an existing codebase into seven documents covering its technology, structure, architecture, conventions, integrations, tests, and concerns. Link findings to file evidence, mark unknowns, and highlight differences between stated plans and the actual implementation.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Get oriented in an unfamiliar codebase
  • Prepare documentation for a project handover
  • Compare documented architecture with implementation
github/awesome-copilot4만2026년 10월 17일 업데이트

Assess a repository’s readiness for AI agents with AgentRC and generate a standalone HTML dashboard. Review scores across nine areas, see prioritized improvements, and optionally apply scoring policies tailored to an organization.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Assessing a repository’s readiness for AI agents
  • Prioritizing improvements from assessment results
  • Reviewing scores under an organization’s own policy
github/awesome-copilot4만2026년 10월 17일 업데이트

Generate coding agent instruction files from a project's actual code using AgentRC. Capture detected languages, frameworks, and conventions in one shared file or split rules by topic and project area, with a preview before writing.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Create project instructions for VS Code Copilot
  • Refresh agent rules after project changes
  • Split monorepo instructions by project area
github/awesome-copilot4만2026년 10월 17일 업데이트

Customize AgentRC readiness assessments to match team or organization standards. Choose or create policies that adjust check importance, disable irrelevant checks, set pass thresholds, and define requirements for automated checks in CI workflows.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Set shared readiness standards across an organization
  • Focus assessments on AI tooling
  • Adjust the importance of individual checks
github/awesome-copilot4만2026년 10월 17일 업데이트

Analyze supplied ad performance data to identify wasted spend, strong campaigns, and next tests. Compare channels, assess whether test differences are meaningful, and produce budget reallocation recommendations with a prioritized action plan.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Identify ads and keywords to pause
  • Find campaigns and audiences worth scaling
  • Assess whether A/B test results are meaningful
github/awesome-copilot4만2026년 10월 17일 업데이트

Turn code files into learning resources by adding comments that explain syntax, programming concepts, and design choices. Adjust explanation depth and repetition to the reader’s knowledge while preserving file structure, encoding, and syntax.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Add beginner-friendly explanations to existing code
  • Document the reasoning behind syntax and design choices
  • Adjust comment depth for readers with different experience
github/awesome-copilot4만2026년 10월 17일 업데이트

github의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고