007
無料Security audit, hardening, threat modeling (STRIDE/PASTA), Red/Blue Team, OWASP checks, code review, incident response, and infrastructure security for any project.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
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"
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
Evaluate AI agent systems against the OWASP Agentic Security Initiative (ASI) Top 10 — the industry standard for agent security posture.
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)
| Risk | Name | What to Look For |
|---|---|---|
| ASI-01 | Prompt Injection | Input validation before tool calls, not just LLM output filtering |
| ASI-02 | Insecure Tool Use | Tool allowlists, argument validation, no raw shell execution |
| ASI-03 | Excessive Agency | Capability boundaries, scope limits, principle of least privilege |
| ASI-04 | Unauthorized Escalation | Privilege checks before sensitive operations, no self-promotion |
| ASI-05 | Trust Boundary Violation | Trust verification between agents, signed credentials, no blind trust |
| ASI-06 | Insufficient Logging | Structured audit trail for all tool calls, tamper-evident logs |
| ASI-07 | Insecure Identity | Cryptographic agent identity, not just string names |
| ASI-08 | Policy Bypass | Deterministic policy enforcement, no LLM-based permission checks |
| ASI-09 | Supply Chain Integrity | Signed plugins/tools, integrity verification, dependency auditing |
| ASI-10 | Behavioral Anomaly | Drift detection, circuit breakers, kill switch capability |
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
Verify tools have allowlists, argument validation, and no unrestricted execution.
What to search for:
subprocess.run(shell=True) with user-controlled inputeval() or exec() on agent-generated code without sandboxPassing 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)
Verify agent capabilities are bounded — not open-ended.
What to search for:
Failing: Agent has access to all tools by default. Passing: Agent capabilities defined as a fixed allowlist, unknown tools denied.
Verify agents cannot promote their own privileges.
What to search for:
Failing: Agent can modify its own configuration or permissions. Passing: Privilege changes require out-of-band approval (e.g., Ring 0 requires SRE attestation).
In multi-agent systems, verify that agents verify each other's identity before accepting instructions.
What to search for:
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)
Verify all agent actions produce structured, tamper-evident audit entries.
What to search for:
Failing: Agent actions logged via print() or not logged at all.
Passing: Structured JSONL audit trail with chain hashes, exported to secure storage.
Verify agents have cryptographic identity, not just string names.
Failing indicators:
agent_name = "my-agent" (string only)Passing indicators:
did:web:, did:key:)Verify policy enforcement is deterministic — not LLM-based.
What to search for:
Failing: Agent decides its own permissions via prompt ("Am I allowed to...?"). Passing: PolicyEvaluator.evaluate() returns allow/deny in <0.1ms, no LLM involved.
Verify agent plugins and tools have integrity verification.
What to search for:
INTEGRITY.json or manifest files with SHA-256 hashes@latest, >= without upper bound)Verify the system can detect and respond to agent behavioral drift.
What to search for:
Failing: No mechanism to stop a misbehaving agent automatically. Passing: Circuit breaker trips after N failures, trust decays without activity, kill switch available.
# 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
Use these to rapidly assess an agent system:
If you answer "no" to any of these, that's a gap to address.
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
Security audit, hardening, threat modeling (STRIDE/PASTA), Red/Blue Team, OWASP checks, code review, incident response, and infrastructure security for any project.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Guides the creation of agile user stories and Gherkin feature files. Use when the user wants to create a user story, write acceptance criteria, define Gherkin scenarios, or author BDD feature files. This should trigger for requests such as Create a user story; Write a user story; I need to write a user story. Part of cursor-rules-java project
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Facilitates conversational discovery to create Architectural Decision Records (ADRs) for non-functional requirements using the ISO/IEC 25010:2023 quality model. Use when the user wants to document quality attributes, NFR decisions, security/performance/scalability architecture, or design systems with measurable quality criteria. This should trigger for requests such as Create ADR for Non-functional requirements; Document Non-functional requirements; Capture Non-functional requirements; Generate Non-functional requirements in an ADR. Part of cursor-rules-java project
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Run a health check on an existing project: dependency audit, security scan, test runner detection, CI/CD evaluation, and missing configuration analysis. Maps the three execution gates (pre/in/post) from /10x-bootstrapper to an assessment framework for existing codebases. Reads optional context/foundation/stack-assessment.md from /10x-stack-assess to focus checks on identified gaps. Writes context/foundation/health-check.md with findings, prioritized fixes, and an agent-readiness verdict. Use when the user has an existing project and wants to verify its health before working with an agent. Trigger phrases: "health check", "check my project", "audit my project", "is my project healthy", "sprawdź projekt", "audyt projektu", "health-check", "project health". Use AFTER /10x-stack-assess (brownfield chain), BEFORE agent onboarding (m1-l4).
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
You MUST use this when building projects end-to-end. Orchestrates all 12 team roles — automatically switches between CTO, architect, PM, engineers, SRE, security, DBA, QA, and EM based on the current phase of work. Starts with brainstorming before any implementation.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when you need to add or configure Maven plugins in your pom.xml — including quality tools (enforcer, surefire, failsafe, jacoco, pitest, spotbugs, pmd), security scanning (OWASP), code formatting (Spotless), version management, container image build (Jib), build information tracking, and benchmarking (JMH) — through a consultative, modular step-by-step approach that only adds what you actually need. This should trigger for requests such as Add Maven plugins in pom.xml; Improve Maven plugins in pom.xml. Part of cursor-rules-java project
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。