본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

checkov-policy

Configures Checkov for IaC security scanning across Terraform, CloudFormation, Kubernetes, Helm, ARM, Serverless, AWS CDK - `pip install checkov`, custom Python checks, SARIF / JUnit output, and `--baseline` gating so CI fails only on new findings in legacy code. Use for the broadest built-in rule set with Python custom checks; for a consolidated new-project scanner (and the tfsec successor) use trivy-config.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

testland/qa스타 13(GitHub 13 + cccskills 0)

실행 점수 미검증

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(3)

  • SKILL.md7.5 KB
  • .tessl-plugin/plugin.json543 B
  • references/custom-checks-and-ci.md1.6 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

checkov-policy

Overview

Per checkov-home, supported frameworks: Terraform and Terraform plan, CloudFormation, Kubernetes, Helm, ARM Templates, Serverless framework, AWS CDK. Checkov is the broadest IaC security scanner - covers more frameworks than tfsec (Terraform-only) or KICS (similar coverage but Checkov has more built-in checks per release).

When to use

  • Team uses any of the supported IaC frameworks.
  • Need security scanning for misconfigurations (open ports, unencrypted storage, overly broad IAM, etc.).
  • Want one tool covering Terraform + Kubernetes + Dockerfile + CI pipelines.

How to use

  1. Install Checkov and pin the version in requirements-dev.txt for CI determinism (Step 1).
  2. Run checkov -d . locally, narrowing frameworks with --framework when the repo mixes IaC types (Step 2).
  3. Emit SARIF for GitHub Code Scanning and JUnit for CI test reporting (Step 3).
  4. Triage findings - fix real issues, annotate intentional exceptions with justified checkov:skip= comments (Step 4).
  5. Add custom Python or YAML checks for team-specific policy the built-in rules miss (Step 5).
  6. Create a .checkov.baseline so CI fails only on new findings, then wire the scan into CI with SARIF upload (Steps 7-8).
  7. Pair with tfsec / KICS and unify the reports for overlapping-but-non-identical coverage (Step 9).

Step 1 - Install

pip install checkov
checkov --version

Per project (recommended for CI determinism):

echo 'checkov==3.2.500' >> requirements-dev.txt
pip install -r requirements-dev.txt

Step 2 - Run

# Scan a directory
checkov -d .

# Scan a specific Terraform file
checkov -f main.tf

# Scan multiple frameworks
checkov -d . --framework terraform,kubernetes,dockerfile

# Scan a Terraform plan (deeper analysis)
terraform plan -out=plan.tfplan
terraform show -json plan.tfplan > plan.json
checkov -f plan.json

Step 3 - Output formats

# Default (CLI)
checkov -d .

# JSON for parsing
checkov -d . -o json

# SARIF for code-scanning dashboards (GitHub Code Scanning)
checkov -d . -o sarif --output-file-path checkov.sarif

# JUnit XML for CI test reporting
checkov -d . -o junitxml > checkov.xml

# Multiple
checkov -d . -o cli -o sarif

Step 4 - Skip checks

# Skip specific checks
checkov -d . --skip-check CKV_AWS_18,CKV_AWS_20

# Skip a check class
checkov -d . --skip-check CKV_AWS_*

In code:

# main.tf
resource "aws_s3_bucket" "logs" {
  bucket = "my-logs"

  # checkov:skip=CKV_AWS_20:Public read access intentional for log distribution
}

The :skip= annotation requires a justification - reviewable in PRs.

Step 5 - Custom Python checks

Author custom Python checks (and the no-code YAML-policy alternative) for team-specific rules the built-in set misses: references/custom-checks-and-ci.md.

Step 6 - Soft fail / hard fail

# Default: any failed check exits non-zero (CI fails)
checkov -d .

# Soft fail: log issues but exit 0 (informational)
checkov -d . --soft-fail

# Soft fail only on specific checks
checkov -d . --soft-fail-on CKV_AWS_*

Pattern: hard fail on critical / new findings; soft fail on legacy issues being ratcheted down.

Step 7 - Baseline comparison

# Generate baseline (current state of findings)
checkov -d . --create-baseline

# Use baseline (fail only on NEW findings vs baseline)
checkov -d . --baseline .checkov.baseline

Baselines let teams adopt Checkov against legacy code without fixing all existing issues at once - only new findings break the build.

Step 8 - CI integration

Wire the scan into CI with a baseline plus SARIF upload to GitHub Code Scanning (findings surface as PR comments + the Security tab): references/custom-checks-and-ci.md.

Step 9 - Combine with other scanners

Checkov + tfsec + KICS catch overlapping but non-identical issues. Combine results to a unified verdict.

checkov -d . -o json > checkov.json
tfsec . -f json > tfsec.json
kics scan -p . --report-formats json -o ./kics-results
# Combine the three reports into a unified verdict

Worked example

A team adopts Checkov on a legacy Terraform + Kubernetes monorepo.

  1. pip install checkov==3.2.500, pinned in requirements-dev.txt.
  2. First run checkov -d . --framework terraform,kubernetes reports a large backlog of existing failures - too many to fix at once.
  3. They capture the current state: checkov -d . --create-baseline writes .checkov.baseline.
  4. CI runs checkov -d . --baseline .checkov.baseline -o sarif --output-file-path checkov.sarif; the build passes because no findings are new versus the baseline.
  5. A PR adds an aws_s3_bucket with acl = "public-read". Checkov flags CKV_AWS_20 as a NEW finding and fails the build.
  6. The author drops public-read (or adds a justified checkov:skip=CKV_AWS_20 comment); the SARIF upload clears the Security-tab entry and the build goes green.

Result: legacy debt is ratcheted down, not ignored, and each PR is gated only on net-new misconfigurations.

Anti-patterns

Anti-patternWhy it failsFix
Skipping all failed checks via --skip-checkDefeats security scanning.Per-check checkov:skip= with justification (Step 4).
Baseline never updatedLegacy issues never fixed; only-new gating becomes meaningless.Periodic baseline review + ratchet down.
Checkov as the only IaC scannerTool-specific gaps; some issues missed.Pair with tfsec / KICS (Step 9).
Ignoring SARIF / GitHub Security tabFindings invisible until someone runs the CLI.SARIF upload (Step 8).
Custom checks without testsCustom logic bugs let bad config through.Test custom checks (per OPA's opa test pattern).

Limitations

  • Per-framework rule depth varies. Terraform / Kubernetes have hundreds of rules; ARM / Serverless have fewer.
  • False positives common in early adoption. Use baseline to manage.
  • Performance on large repos. Checkov scans whole-tree; can take minutes.
  • Built-in rules may not match team policy. Custom checks for team-specific rules (Step 5).

References

  • ch - Checkov overview, supported IaC frameworks, common CLI usage, Palo Alto Networks maintainer.
  • trivy-config - sister scanner (tfsec legacy in its references/tfsec-legacy.md).
  • policy-as-code-runner - custom policies via OPA / Conftest (Checkov for built-in; OPA for custom).

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

Builds a CI gate that fails the build on **new** WCAG / a11y violations introduced by a PR while grandfathering pre-existing violations on a per-rule / per-page baseline. Aggregates verdicts from axe-core / pa11y / Lighthouse a11y / WAVE / IBM Equal Access scans. Use when a project has accumulated a11y debt and a strict "zero violations" gate would block every PR - the ratchet pattern lets the team ship while preventing regressions.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

testland/qa132026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Workflow skill that builds an A/B-test validity checklist from an experiment proposal, walking the canonical design-correctness gates - pre-registered OEC/power/guardrails, randomization unit + SRM check, assignment integrity, telemetry, peeking discipline, novelty/primacy, post-experiment SRM re-check - into a per-experiment checklist + sign-off form. Use when launching, auditing, or governing an experiment. For pitfall mechanics (guardrails, peeking) see experiment-results-interpreter's references; to read an already-valid result use experiment-results-interpreter; for per-SDK harness tests use experiment-sdk-testing - this gates DESIGN, not SDK code.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

testland/qa132026년 10월 20일 업데이트

The single install-flow skill: the reference contract for the PWA install flow (installability gate fields, `beforeinstallprompt` handshake, per-platform paths - Android WebAPK / iOS Share menu / Firefox no-op - and the `display-mode` post-install signal, in references/install-flow-reference.md) plus the build-an-X workflow that emits the Add-to-Home-Screen suite. Walks the four-stage timeline, emitting one test per gate cell per [web.dev/articles/install-criteria][install-criteria], the deferred-prompt → `prompt()` → `userChoice` chain per [web.dev/articles/customize-install][customize-install], the iOS Safari manual-metadata branch (`apple-touch-icon`) per [web.dev/learn/pwa/installation][learn-pwa], and the post-install `(display-mode: standalone)` MQ assertion. Output: a Playwright spec with per-stage cells plus a coverage matrix. Use when a PWA's manifest, icons, or install handler change, when install conversion drops at an unknown stage, or when triaging a flaky install assertion.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

testland/qa132026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Build-an-X workflow that uses an LLM to map existing tests to spec sections - given a spec doc + the test suite, the LLM identifies which tests cover which sections, surfaces uncovered sections (gap), and recommends specific tests to add. Output is a coverage matrix per spec ID. Scope is mapping tests that already exist and naming the gaps, not authoring tests for new acceptance criteria. Use when a spec doc and a test suite both exist but nobody can say which requirements are actually covered - before a release sign-off, an audit, or a decision about where to spend the next round of test effort.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

testland/qa132026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Generates tests from natural-language specs (acceptance criteria, user stories, requirements) using an LLM, with confidence scoring per test case (LLM self-assessment plus heuristics: assertion quality, naming, completeness), batching uncertain cases for human review, and integration with the team's existing test framework. Use when the user asks to generate unit tests from acceptance criteria, convert user stories to test cases, automate test creation from requirements, or augment a spec-driven test suite with AI-generated stubs that are then curated before merge.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

testland/qa132026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Configures Allure Report (test-runner adapter install, `allure-results` directory wiring, `categories.json` for failure classification, `history-trend.json` retention via the copy-history-between-runs pattern), runs the Allure CLI to convert `allure-results` to a static HTML site, and uploads the report as a CI artifact. Use when the team needs richer test reporting than JUnit XML - step-level attachments, per-test history, retry tracking, and severity / epic / feature labeling across framework-agnostic adapters (pytest, Jest, JUnit, TestNG, NUnit, Mocha). As a rich static HTML report generator, it is the open-source alternative to the sunset ExtentReports (JVM/.NET per-test HTML narrative); for hosted cross-run flakiness analytics rather than a static per-run report use currents-integration.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

testland/qa132026년 10월 20일 업데이트

testland의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고