跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

post-patch-validation

Validate security patches by comparing vulnerable and patched code against exploit tests, related attack variants, and normal behavior. Produce reproducible logs showing remaining flaws, regressions, newly introduced security failures, and gaps that still need testing.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

原文查看原文说明

Validates security patches with reproducible baseline-versus-patched evidence, including original exploits, root-cause variants, behavior preservation, regressions, and newly introduced security failures. Use after a patch exists and before accepting, merging, or reporting it as fixed; also use when an AI-generated patch, remediation commit, pull request, or proposed upstream fix needs adversarial post-patch validation across any language.

查看安装方法

适用场景

  • Validate an AI-generated security patch before review
  • Check related attack variants for incomplete fixes
  • Check whether a fix breaks normal behavior
  • Return reproducible failures to the patch author

包含的文件(5)

  • SKILL.md15.0 KB
  • agents/openai.yaml244 B
  • references/evidence-model.md12.0 KB
  • scripts/post_patch_validation.py76.3 KB
  • scripts/pyproject.toml116 B

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Post-Patch Validation

Validate a security patch against the reported bug and the surrounding code it affects. Give the patch author reproducible failures to fix and identify what still needs testing. Apply the same checks to human and agent patches. The diff, author, upstream implementation, and original proof of concept alone cannot establish correctness.

When to Use

  • A security fix, remediation commit, patch file, or pull request already exists.
  • An AI-generated patch needs validation before human review or merge.
  • A fix may cover one exploit path while missing variants of the same root cause.
  • A security fix may alter legitimate behavior or introduce a new vulnerability.
  • A patch author needs concrete failures and coverage gaps before another revision.

When NOT to Use

  • No patch exists yet; use vulnerability discovery or fix implementation first.
  • The task is to review an audit finding against a report without executing patch evidence.
  • The task is only to convert a finding into a permanent project test.
  • The target is remote or production. This skill executes local code and tests only.
  • The user has not authorized execution of the repository's code or test suite.

Quick Start

  1. Pin the vulnerable base and patched input. Prefer immutable commits. For uncommitted work, create a binary patch file first; do not validate in the user's working tree.

  2. Scaffold a pinned plan:

    uv run {baseDir}/scripts/post_patch_validation.py scaffold \
      --repo . \
      --base-ref <vulnerable-ref> \
      --patched-ref <patched-ref> \
      --finding-id <stable-id> \
      --finding-summary "<root cause and impact>" \
      --evidence-level runtime \
      --output post-patch-validation/plan.json
    

    Use --patch-file <path> instead of --patched-ref for a patch artifact. Choose the highest honest evidence level: source for source/patch invariants only, build when target code is compiled or analyzed but the reported behavior is not executed, or runtime when the checks execute the reported behavior and its safety assertions.

  3. Inspect the finding, diff, callers, sibling paths, cleanup/error paths, and existing tests. Populate checks in the generated plan. Run print-schema for the structural schema:

    uv run {baseDir}/scripts/post_patch_validation.py print-schema
    
  4. Run validate-plan for the complete validation, including coverage, command restrictions, and pinned inputs, before executing code:

    uv run {baseDir}/scripts/post_patch_validation.py validate-plan \
      --plan post-patch-validation/plan.json
    
  5. Execute the evidence plan:

    uv run {baseDir}/scripts/post_patch_validation.py run \
      --plan post-patch-validation/plan.json \
      --output post-patch-validation/results
    
  6. Report result.json, report.md, the evidence level, and the complete assessment. Return each finding to the patch author with its check ID, assertion, and saved logs. Identify each validation gap separately, including gaps that coexist with supported findings. After the author revises the patch, pin the new inputs and save a fresh validation run. Preserve the prior evidence. Passing supplied checks still requires human review before acceptance.

Evidence Contract

The runner rejects incomplete plans. Supply at least one check of every kind:

KindRequired observation
controlBenign harness succeeds on both base and patch
exploitOriginal safety assertion fails on base and succeeds on patch
variantA distinct root-cause variant fails on base and succeeds on patch
behaviorUnaffected behavior succeeds with byte-identical selected output
regressionTargeted non-security regression check succeeds on both revisions
securityAdjacent/new-vulnerability check succeeds on base and patch
suiteExisting project suite, sanitizer, or deterministic fuzz campaign succeeds on patch

Commands are argv arrays, never shell strings. Put complex setup in a checked-in or plan artifact script and invoke it with {plan_dir}. The runner fixes locale/timezone/hash-seed inputs, executes checks in lexical ID order, records raw stdout/stderr, and never edits the original worktree. Each check's timeout_seconds defaults to 300 and accepts integers from 1 through 3600. Exceeding the timeout leaves a validation gap. A timeout alone does not establish a regression. Every plan also contains a sorted submodules array ([] when none). Scaffolding infers affected Gitlinks from the changed-file inventory. The runner initializes those pinned commits from the source repository's existing Git module objects, never from .gitmodules network URLs; initialize or fetch them in the source repository before validation.

Exploit and variant checks must prove they ran

A nonzero exit does not mean the vulnerability reproduced. An import error, a failed build, a missing dependency, and a failed safety assertion all exit nonzero and are indistinguishable to the runner. Every exploit and variant check must print and flush PPV_REACHED immediately before it evaluates its assertion, on both revisions:

"argv": ["python3", "-c", "import app; value = app.render('<'); print('PPV_REACHED', flush=True); assert value == '&lt;'"]

The token is also in the environment as PPV_REACHED_MARKER. It must land on stdout, as a line of its own. Stderr is not scanned, because a Python SyntaxError traceback echoes the offending source and would otherwise satisfy the check for a harness that executed nothing. A run without it leaves a marker_missing gap. Independent findings from other checks remain in the result. Flush explicitly: a harness whose payload segfaults or calls _exit loses buffered output and forfeits its own evidence.

These checks also run side-blind. {side} is not expanded for them, PPV_SIDE is absent from their environment, the checkout directory is randomly named, and the plan validator rejects any exploit or variant check whose argv or env mentions either. An assertion that can see which revision it is on can assert on that instead of on the code, which is the cheapest possible way to fake a reproduction followed by a fix.

Environment

Checks run under a fixed minimal environment: PATH, HOME, and a handful of temp/user keys, plus LANG/LC_ALL=C, TZ=UTC, PYTHONHASHSEED=0, NO_COLOR, TERM=dumb. Everything else in the caller's environment is dropped. Toolchains that need more get it explicitly:

uv run {baseDir}/scripts/post_patch_validation.py run \
  --plan post-patch-validation/plan.json \
  --output post-patch-validation/results \
  --allow-env JAVA_HOME --allow-env CARGO_HOME

Forwarded names and values are recorded in result.json. A requested variable that is unset is an error, not an empty string. Two classes are refused outright: names that read as credentials (*SECRET*, *TOKEN*, *API_KEY*, …), because the value would be written into the result; and names that change what executes (LD_PRELOAD, BASH_ENV, NODE_OPTIONS, GIT_SSH_COMMAND, …), because those variables can change which code executes. The runner's fixed variables and every PPV_* name are also reserved and cannot be forwarded.

Placeholders expanded in argv and per-check env values: {checkout} (the revision under test), {plan_dir} (an isolated copy of the plan artifacts for that one invocation), {scratch} (a fresh opaque directory for that one check invocation), and {side} (base or patched, and not available to exploit/variant checks). The same values arrive as PPV_CHECKOUT, PPV_PLAN_DIR, PPV_SCRATCH, PPV_SIDE, and PPV_CASE_ID. Write only under {scratch}; the evidence directory path is not passed to checks. Base and patched invocations do not share runner-managed scratch, plan, or worktree roots. After each invocation exits, its scratch tree is archived under the deterministic results/scratch/<check-id-and-side> path, its private plan copy is discarded, and every readable argv element that resolves to a file is hashed in argv_files. Files inside the isolated plan or checkout roots are additionally retained under results/helpers/<sha256> up to 16 MiB; the record explains why any other file was not archived. Use a dedicated directory for plan.json: its sibling files and directories are copied into each invocation's {plan_dir}. Keep helper code under that directory's checks/ directory or checked into the target repository so its bytes are reviewable. The machine plan containing commit pins, the current output directory, and detected prior result trees are excluded; symlinks are rejected. The clean snapshot remains only in runner memory, and exploit/variant sides execute in random order while evidence filenames remain deterministic. Stdout/stderr use anonymous or randomly named capture descriptors and are copied to the named evidence files only after the child exits, so fd inspection cannot disclose the side label.

This isolation is not a host sandbox: checks run with the caller's privileges and a malicious helper could use arbitrary external state or deliberately infer the revision from source or Git metadata. Inspect the content-addressed helper artifacts, and use an OS/container sandbox when the check code itself is untrusted.

Active validation worktrees are Git-locked with random owner tokens backed by kernel file locks, so another concurrent validator cannot prune them and PID reuse cannot impersonate an owner. If the runner is forcibly killed, the next run unlocks stale validator-owned registrations. For manual recovery, inspect git worktree list, then use git worktree unlock <path> and git worktree remove --force <path> (or git worktree prune after the path is gone).

Read evidence-model.md when designing coverage, selecting variants, or interpreting findings and validation gaps. Do not read it for routine CLI execution.

Coverage Rules

  • Derive variants from the root cause, not cosmetic mutations of the original payload.
  • Enumerate sibling call sites, alternate callbacks/outputs, error paths, teardown, ownership, serialization, and boundary values touched by the fix.
  • Make each exploit or variant test assert the safe behavior. It must fail on the vulnerable base; a test that passes on both revisions proves nothing about remediation. Read the base-side stderr and confirm the failure is the assertion you wrote, not a harness that never got there.
  • Keep exploit and variant assertions limited to the security invariant. Test liveness, exact error types/messages, timing, and compatibility separately as behavior or regression checks; otherwise an unrelated contract change can masquerade as proof that the vulnerability remains.
  • Keep the control harness benign and make it exercise the changed component. It establishes that the harness works on both revisions. Failed controls leave gaps and prevent attributing other failures to the patch. The raw observations remain available for review.
  • Use behavior only for behavior that should remain unchanged. Exact output comparison is deliberate; move unstable values behind a deterministic test harness instead of normalizing them away in prose.
  • Make security checks pass on the vulnerable base before treating a patched failure as newly introduced. A failed baseline leaves attribution unresolved.
  • Do not edit the patch during validation. Return failures to the patch author and start a new, freshly pinned run.

Reading the result

result.json schema 2.0 contains an assessment with status, findings, gaps, and human_review_required. Status is complete when all required checks produced usable evidence, even if some checks found failures. Status is incomplete when any gap remains. Findings name the check ID, check kind, and failed expectation. Gaps name the check ID and missing evidence, with a null check ID for run-level problems such as cleanup failures.

Suite checks run on the patched revision first. A completed failure triggers the same check on baseline. If baseline passes, report the failure after the patch. If both fail, preserve both logs and report that attribution is unresolved. Do not assume matching exit codes mean the same failure.

The runner exits 0 for complete checks with no findings, 1 for complete checks with findings, 10 for incomplete validation, and 64 for invalid inputs. Read the artifact even after exit 10: it can contain supported findings alongside gaps. Source or build evidence cannot establish runtime behavior. State the evidence level alongside any passing result.

Claude Dynamic Workflow

Claude Code exposes the bundled workflow as /post-patch-validation:validate-patch. To pass structured inputs through the Workflow tool, use the name without a leading slash:

Workflow({
  name: 'post-patch-validation:validate-patch',
  args: {
    finding: '<finding text or local path>',
    baseRef: '<vulnerable-ref>',
    patchRef: '<patched-ref>',
    workdir: 'post-patch-validation',
  },
})

Use patchFile instead of patchRef when appropriate. The workflow uses fixed coverage lenses to propose checks and a fixed executor to run this skill. Agents may author test artifacts. The Python runner records findings and gaps, and reviewers report coverage or evidence concerns separately. NEEDS_REPAIR returns supported failures even when other checks left gaps. BLOCKED means evidence is incomplete without a supported failure. Passing checks advance to READY_FOR_HUMAN_REVIEW only after both evidence reviews approve, otherwise REVIEW_REQUIRED. The workflow cannot ask questions after launch, so pass every input up front.

Rationalizations to Reject

RationalizationRequired response
"The original PoC no longer works"Test at least one independent root-cause variant
"The exploit failed on base, so it reproduced"Confirm the marker and that the failure is the assertion, not a broken harness
"The full suite passes"Prove baseline reproduction and targeted behavior explicitly
"This matches the upstream/canonical patch"Treat provenance as context, not evidence
"The diff is tiny"Exercise callers, failure paths, and teardown affected by the change
"All supplied checks passed"Preserve artifacts and require human review
"A flaky rerun passed"Keep the first pinned result; fix nondeterminism before retrying
"There is no obvious variant"Inspect sibling sites and boundaries; otherwise report the missing coverage

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Detect memory errors while fuzzing C/C++
  • Test unsafe Rust and calls to external libraries
  • Interpret an ASan crash report
trailofbits/skills76372026年10月16日 更新

aflpp

免费

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Running C/C++ fuzzing across multiple CPU cores
  • Exploring further after libFuzzer progress stalls
  • Monitoring fuzzing progress and stability
trailofbits/skills76372026年10月16日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Reviewing workflows that run AI coding agents
  • Tracing issue and PR content into agent prompts
  • Checking sandbox settings and user allowlists
trailofbits/skills76372026年10月16日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Security checks before an Algorand contract audit
  • Reviewing TEAL or PyTeal transaction validation
  • Verifying fixes for reported vulnerabilities
trailofbits/skills76372026年10月16日 更新

atheris

免费

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Fuzzing a Python package or parser
  • Investigating memory corruption in Python C extensions
  • Turning raw bytes into typed test arguments
trailofbits/skills76372026年10月16日 更新

Connect static analysis results and human audit notes to a Trailmark code graph. Group findings by severity and compare them with input flow, impact, and privilege boundaries to prioritize investigation and understand findings in their code context.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Connecting Semgrep or CodeQL results to code structure
  • Combining human audit notes with automated findings
  • Prioritizing findings using input flow and impact
trailofbits/skills76372026年10月16日 更新

查看 trailofbits 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题