본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

prove-patch

Independently verifies a committed security patch by testing the original, patched, and fully reverted code. It preserves test evidence, checks the declared repair scope, and reports confirmed failures, missing evidence, and limits of what was proven.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

원문원문 설명 보기

Use when a local security patch commit needs independent scoped and three-arm proof.

설치 방법 보기

이럴 때 유용합니다

  • Independently verify a security patch
  • Compare original, patched, and reverted behavior
  • Check valid inputs for regressions
  • Preserve evidence and document verification limits

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md4.4 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Prove Patch

Use the original baseline, final patch commit, declared repair_scope, and unchanged reproduction package. Read the record contract. Do not edit the patch or validate an uncommitted tree. Return failures for a new attempt. Before target commands, follow its project guidance.

  1. Review the scoped cases and the patch without the patcher's conclusion. Execute each planned input on clean baseline and patched trees with the same retained harness source and command. The harness must print exactly one PATCH_CASE {"input": ..., "actual": ...} from the exercised input and observed result, then print PATCH_REACHED as its final stdout line immediately before the assertion. Representatives must fail on the baseline and pass on the patch. Valid controls must pass on both. Keep the baseline and patched stdout, stderr, exit status, elapsed time, command, and harness source under receipts/. A timeout, setup failure, missing marker, mismatched input, or ambiguous observation is an evidence gap. A trustworthy patched failure is a finding. Never relabel a gap as a pass.
  2. Run relevant project checks on the patch and retain the same raw receipts. Use baseline comparison for behavior checks and to attribute failed project checks; a passing patched suite may omit a baseline run. Include focused tests, regression and security checks where relevant. Record specific unproven limits; an empty list leaves the result inconclusive.
  3. Run the three-arm helper with the proof-type recipe in the record contract, reproduce.baseline_commit, and final patch_commit. Require the baseline to fail, patch to pass, and complete baseline revert to fail again. Require receipts/source.json to identify the pinned commits and the reverted tree to equal the original baseline tree. Require the type's build identity result. Retain all source-tree, build, and execution receipts.
  4. Write prove.json and a final manifest covering it and every receipt. Run uv run --no-project <script> manifest <prove-attempt-dir> and then uv run --no-project <script> check <run-dir> with the validator. Independently inspect the native proof assessment and raw receipts before reporting a result. A complete proof has no findings or gaps. Return exact failures and receipt paths to the orchestrator.

Prove record schema:

{
  "schema_version": 2,
  "attempt": 1,
  "failure_type": "runtime",
  "baseline_commit": "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa",
  "patch_commit": "bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb",
  "reverted": "pass",
  "build_identity": "pass",
  "hashes": {
    "baseline": "1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111",
    "patched": "2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222",
    "reverted": "1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111"
  },
  "reverted_hash_note": null,
  "cases": [{
    "check_id": "reported-input",
    "argv": ["python", "receipts/case.py", "reported-input"],
    "source": "receipts/case.py",
    "runs": {
      "baseline": {"exit_code": 1, "elapsed_ms": 15, "stdout": "receipts/case-base.stdout", "stderr": "receipts/case-base.stderr"},
      "patched": {"exit_code": 0, "elapsed_ms": 14, "stdout": "receipts/case-patched.stdout", "stderr": "receipts/case-patched.stderr"}
    }
  }],
  "project_checks": [{
    "check_id": "focused-suite",
    "kind": "suite",
    "argv": ["pytest", "tests/test_upload.py"],
    "baseline": null,
    "patched": {"exit_code": 0, "elapsed_ms": 860, "stdout": "receipts/suite.stdout", "stderr": "receipts/suite.stderr"}
  }],
  "unproven": ["Inputs outside the declared boundary were not assessed."],
  "agent": "prover-1"
}

For a bounded class, include at least two distinct failing representatives and a valid control. The record must cover every planned case by unique check_id. Use the same harness and command on both commits; do not reveal the side to the harness or change expectations by side. Review the selected cases for relevance; retained receipts establish only what those cases exercised.

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

Build and test code with AddressSanitizer, a tool that detects invalid memory access during execution. Configure checks for C/C++ and unsafe Rust, investigate crash reports, and adjust settings for fuzzing, or testing with generated inputs.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Detect memory errors while fuzzing C/C++
  • Test unsafe Rust and calls to external libraries
  • Interpret an ASan crash report
trailofbits/skills7.7천2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

Assess source code and live reproduction evidence to decide whether a change introduced a regression, a newly caused defect. Record supported conclusions, exclusions, severity, and unresolved gaps in an evidence-linked decision file.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Decide whether a change introduced a new defect
  • Separate existing bugs from newly introduced defects
  • Record missing evidence and unresolved questions
trailofbits/skills7.7천2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

aflpp

무료

Sets up AFL++ to test C/C++ programs with varied generated inputs, a technique called fuzzing. Covers running tests across CPU cores, monitoring progress, reducing input collections, and reproducing crashes for investigation.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Running C/C++ fuzzing across multiple CPU cores
  • Exploring further after libFuzzer progress stalls
  • Monitoring fuzzing progress and stability
trailofbits/skills7.7천2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

Audits GitHub Actions workflows that run AI coding agents. Traces how attacker-controlled content reaches prompts, checks permissions and sandbox settings, and reports evidence, severity, and fixes for prompt injection and related configuration risks.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Reviewing workflows that run AI coding agents
  • Tracing issue and PR content into agent prompts
  • Checking sandbox settings and user allowlists
trailofbits/skills7.7천2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

Reviews Algorand smart contracts written in TEAL or PyTeal for 11 vulnerability patterns. Produces a complete coverage table and findings with code references, severity ratings, and suggested fixes, with optional automated checks using Tealer.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Security checks before an Algorand contract audit
  • Reviewing TEAL or PyTeal transaction validation
  • Verifying fixes for reported vulnerabilities
trailofbits/skills7.7천2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

atheris

무료

Set up Atheris to test Python code and C extensions with automatically varied inputs. It guides test harness creation, coverage tracking to explore more code, and AddressSanitizer setup for finding memory errors.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Fuzzing a Python package or parser
  • Investigating memory corruption in Python C extensions
  • Turning raw bytes into typed test arguments
trailofbits/skills7.7천2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

trailofbits의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고