本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

security-scan

Review trust boundaries, auth, input handling, secrets, and dependency risk before release.

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。

PacificStudio/openaseスター 269(GitHub 269 + cccskills 0)

実行スコア 未検証

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md3.4 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

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。

Security Scan

Overview

Conduct a security-focused review of the code or change set. Map trust boundaries first, then inspect how untrusted input, credentials, permissions, dependencies, and deployment defaults are handled.

When To Use

  • After adding or changing authentication or authorization logic.
  • After adding new API endpoints, uploads, background jobs, or external integrations.
  • Before production deployment.
  • When the change handles untrusted input, secrets, tokens, files, or network calls.
  • When the user explicitly requests a security review or audit.

Review Workflow

  1. Map the attack surface.

    • Entry points, user-controlled input, file access, network access, storage boundaries, and privileged operations.
  2. Review authentication and authorization.

    • Authentication bypasses.
    • Missing authorization checks.
    • Confused trust boundaries between user, service, and admin actions.
  3. Review input handling and injection surfaces.

    • SQL, NoSQL, shell, template, and path injection.
    • XSS and unsafe HTML rendering.
    • SSRF, open redirects, and unsafe outbound requests.
  4. Review secrets and cryptography.

    • Hardcoded keys, tokens, passwords, or connection strings.
    • Weak password hashing or unsafe token generation.
    • Sensitive data exposure in logs, errors, or client payloads.
  5. Review dependency and configuration risk.

    • Known vulnerable dependencies.
    • Overly permissive defaults.
    • Missing secure headers, unsafe CORS, or weak production settings.
  6. Review detection and recovery.

    • Are important security-relevant failures logged?
    • Would an operator be able to detect abuse or investigate an incident?
  7. Report severity-rated findings with remediation guidance.

    • CRITICAL: exploitable issue or active secret exposure; block deployment.
    • HIGH: serious vulnerability or major trust-boundary weakness; fix before release.
    • MEDIUM: meaningful hardening gap or partial control failure.
    • LOW: defense-in-depth improvement or cleanup.

Security Checklist

  • Authentication and authorization boundaries are explicit and enforced.
  • Untrusted input is validated, normalized, and escaped at the correct boundary.
  • Queries and commands are parameterized and never built from raw user input.
  • Secrets are not stored in source, test fixtures, logs, or client-visible responses.
  • File and network access respect allowlists and path or host validation where appropriate.
  • Dependency versions and deployment defaults do not introduce known high-risk vulnerabilities.

Operating Rules

  • Think in trust boundaries and attacker-controlled inputs, not only code style.
  • Prefer reproducible exploit paths over vague warnings.
  • Name the impacted asset or permission boundary for every serious finding.
  • Include a practical remediation path, not just the vulnerability label.
  • If no critical issues are found, still call out hardening gaps and any unreviewed surfaces.

Default Deliverable Shape

Return these sections:

  1. Attack Surface
  2. Findings - ordered by severity with file and line references where possible.
  3. Exploit Path / Impact - why each important issue matters.
  4. Remediation - concrete fixes and safer patterns.
  5. Residual Risks - remaining uncertainty or unreviewed areas.

レビュー

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。

コメント

ログインなしで書き込めます。使ってみた感想、質問、動かなかった環境などを気軽にどうぞ。

まだコメントはありません。最初のコメントを書いてみませんか。

送信するとすぐに公開されます。メールアドレスや電話番号などの個人情報は書かないでください。URL は 2 つまでです。

0 / 1000 文字

このフォームは reCAPTCHA で保護されており、Google のプライバシーポリシーと利用規約が適用されます。

同じリポジトリのスキル

Diagnose and strengthen a repository's harness layer: AGENTS.md rules, knowledge layout, architecture boundaries, lint and type gates, API and generated-client contracts, test scaffolding, structured logging, and technical-debt tracking. Use when Codex needs to audit drift-prone semantics that are repeated across code, docs, schemas, generated artifacts, frontend/backend boundaries, or CI, then design or implement guardrails with progressive disclosure and zero-tolerance contract checks.

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。

PacificStudio/openase2692026年8月9日 更新

commit

無料

Create a well-formed git commit from current changes using session history for rationale and summary; use when asked to commit, prepare a commit message, or finalize staged work.

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。

PacificStudio/openase2692026年8月9日 更新

commit

無料

Write concise Conventional Commit messages that match the actual scope of the change.

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。

PacificStudio/openase2692026年8月9日 更新

create-pr

無料

Prepare a crisp pull request summary with scope, validation, and rollout notes.

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。

PacificStudio/openase2692026年8月9日 更新

Clarify ambiguous requests with a focused, Socratic interview before planning or 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。

PacificStudio/openase2692026年8月9日 更新

Create or update a branch-scoped Coolify review environment with one command, and delete it with one command. Use when a ticket must deploy a preview before human review, while keeping the workflow simple and fast.

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。

PacificStudio/openase2692026年8月9日 更新

PacificStudio のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する