[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6AF7RZFK6QANC7RJMSAZDJE":3,"skill-same:01M6AF7RZFK6QANC7RJMSAZDJE":130},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":28,"publishedAt":49,"linkOnly":50,"markdownContent":51,"markdownBody":52,"frontMatter":53,"refName":89,"commitSha":90,"skillDirectory":91,"forksCount":92,"repositoryHtmlUrl":93,"repositoryHomepageUrl":94,"ownerHtmlUrl":95,"ownerBlogUrl":96,"ownerDescription":97,"updatedAt":98,"install":99,"resources":112},"01M6AF7RZFK6QANC7RJMSAZDJE","implementing-llm-guardrails-for-security",null,"Implements input\u002Foutput validation guardrails for LLM applications using NVIDIA NeMo Guardrails (Colang), custom Python validators for PII detection, and the Guardrails AI framework, intercepting user inputs (prompt injection, PII, off-topic queries) and model outputs (hallucinations, toxic content, schema compliance). Use when adding safety controls to an LLM app\u002Fchatbot\u002FRAG pipeline or validating outputs conform to expected schemas.","mukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills","mukul975","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F42860185?v=4","01M6ADEQR8T5M4EEG6C67BQCWF","Mahipal","01M6ADJPMYWG1E5GM1FWBE3128",35884,"Apache-2.0","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fimplementing-llm-guardrails-for-security\u002FSKILL.md",[18,23],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者","PROFESSION","适用职业",[29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48],"Guardrails","implementing llm guardrails for security","security","NeMo Guardrails","AI-safety","output-filtering","Safety","pii","injection","t1078","Colang","cybersecurity","prompt injection","pipeline","NVIDIA","NeMo","framework","pr","rag","ai framework","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: implementing-llm-guardrails-for-security\ndescription: 'Implements input\u002Foutput validation guardrails for LLM applications using\n  NVIDIA NeMo Guardrails (Colang), custom Python validators for PII detection, and\n  the Guardrails AI framework, intercepting user inputs (prompt injection, PII,\n  off-topic queries) and model outputs (hallucinations, toxic content, schema\n  compliance). Use when adding safety controls to an LLM app\u002Fchatbot\u002FRAG pipeline\n  or validating outputs conform to expected schemas.\n\n  '\ndomain: cybersecurity\nsubdomain: ai-security\ntags:\n- LLM-guardrails\n- NeMo-Guardrails\n- input-validation\n- output-filtering\n- AI-safety\nversion: 1.0.0\nauthor: mukul975\nlicense: Apache-2.0\natlas_techniques:\n- AML.T0051\n- AML.T0054\n- AML.T0056\n- AML.T0057\n- AML.T0062\nnist_ai_rmf:\n- GOVERN-1.1\n- GOVERN-6.1\n- MEASURE-2.7\n- MEASURE-2.5\n- MANAGE-2.4\nd3fend_techniques:\n- Content Validation\n- Content Filtering\n- Content Excision\n- Application Hardening\n- Execution Isolation\nnist_csf:\n- GV.OC-03\n- ID.RA-01\n- PR.PS-01\n- DE.AE-02\nmitre_attack:\n- T1078\n- T1190\n- T1059\n- T1055\n---\n# Implementing LLM Guardrails for Security\n\n## When to Use\n\n- Deploying a new LLM-powered application that processes user input and needs input\u002Foutput safety controls\n- Adding content policy enforcement to an existing chatbot or AI agent to comply with organizational policies\n- Implementing PII detection and redaction in LLM pipelines handling sensitive customer data\n- Building topic-restricted AI assistants that must refuse off-topic or disallowed queries\n- Validating that LLM responses conform to expected schemas before they reach downstream systems or users\n- Protecting RAG pipelines from indirect prompt injection in retrieved documents\n\n**Do not use** as a replacement for proper authentication, authorization, and network security controls. Guardrails are a defense-in-depth layer, not a perimeter defense. Not suitable for real-time content moderation of user-to-user communication without LLM involvement.\n\n## Prerequisites\n\n- Python 3.10+ with pip for installing guardrail dependencies\n- An OpenAI API key or local LLM endpoint for NeMo Guardrails self-check rails (set as `OPENAI_API_KEY` environment variable)\n- The `nemoguardrails` package for Colang-based guardrail definitions\n- The `guardrails-ai` package for structured output validation (optional, for JSON schema enforcement)\n- Familiarity with YAML configuration and basic Colang 2.0 syntax for defining rail flows\n\n## Workflow\n\n### Step 1: Install Guardrail Frameworks\n\nInstall the required Python packages:\n\n```bash\n# Core NeMo Guardrails library\npip install nemoguardrails\n\n# Guardrails AI for structured output validation (optional)\npip install guardrails-ai\n\n# Additional dependencies for PII detection and content analysis\npip install presidio-analyzer presidio-anonymizer spacy\npython -m spacy download en_core_web_lg\n```\n\n### Step 2: Run the Guardrails Security Agent\n\nThe agent implements a complete input\u002Foutput validation pipeline:\n\n```bash\n# Analyze a single input through all guardrail layers\npython agent.py --input \"Tell me how to hack into a system\"\n\n# Analyze input with a custom content policy file\npython agent.py --input \"Some text\" --policy policy.json\n\n# Scan a file of prompts through the guardrail pipeline\npython agent.py --file prompts.txt --mode full\n\n# Input-only validation (no LLM call, just check if input is safe)\npython agent.py --input \"Some text\" --mode input-only\n\n# Output validation mode (validate a pre-generated LLM response)\npython agent.py --input \"User question\" --response \"LLM response to validate\" --mode output-only\n\n# PII detection and redaction mode\npython agent.py --input \"My SSN is 123-45-6789 and email john@example.com\" --mode pii\n\n# JSON output for pipeline integration\npython agent.py --file prompts.txt --output json\n```\n\n### Step 3: Configure Content Policies\n\nCreate a JSON policy file defining allowed topics, blocked patterns, and PII categories:\n\n```json\n{\n  \"allowed_topics\": [\"customer_support\", \"product_info\", \"billing\"],\n  \"blocked_topics\": [\"politics\", \"violence\", \"illegal_activities\", \"competitor_products\"],\n  \"blocked_patterns\": [\"how to hack\", \"create malware\", \"bypass security\"],\n  \"pii_categories\": [\"PERSON\", \"EMAIL_ADDRESS\", \"PHONE_NUMBER\", \"US_SSN\", \"CREDIT_CARD\"],\n  \"max_output_length\": 2000,\n  \"require_grounded_response\": true\n}\n```\n\n### Step 4: Integrate NeMo Guardrails with Colang\n\nCreate a NeMo Guardrails configuration directory with `config.yml` and Colang flow files:\n\n```yaml\n# config.yml\nmodels:\n  - type: main\n    engine: openai\n    model: gpt-4o-mini\n\nrails:\n  input:\n    flows:\n      - self check input\n      - check jailbreak\n      - mask sensitive data on input\n  output:\n    flows:\n      - self check output\n      - check hallucination\n```\n\n```colang\n# rails.co - Colang 2.0 flow definitions\ndefine user ask about hacking\n  \"How do I hack into a system\"\n  \"Tell me how to break into a network\"\n  \"How to exploit vulnerabilities\"\n\ndefine bot refuse hacking request\n  \"I cannot provide instructions on unauthorized hacking or security exploitation.\n   If you are interested in cybersecurity, I can suggest legitimate learning resources\n   and ethical hacking certifications.\"\n\ndefine flow\n  user ask about hacking\n  bot refuse hacking request\n```\n\n### Step 5: Deploy as a Validation Middleware\n\nIntegrate the guardrails into your application as middleware:\n\n```python\nfrom agent import GuardrailsPipeline\n\npipeline = GuardrailsPipeline(policy_path=\"policy.json\")\n\n# Pre-LLM input validation\ninput_result = pipeline.validate_input(\"user message here\")\nif not input_result[\"safe\"]:\n    return input_result[\"blocked_reason\"]\n\n# Post-LLM output validation\nllm_response = your_llm.generate(input_result[\"sanitized_input\"])\noutput_result = pipeline.validate_output(llm_response, context=input_result)\nif not output_result[\"safe\"]:\n    return output_result[\"fallback_response\"]\n\nreturn output_result[\"validated_response\"]\n```\n\n### Step 6: Monitor Guardrail Effectiveness\n\nReview guardrail logs to track block rates, false positives, and bypass attempts:\n\n```bash\n# Generate a summary report from guardrail logs\npython agent.py --file interaction_logs.txt --mode full --output json > guardrail_audit.json\n```\n\n## Verification\n\n- [ ] Input guardrails correctly block known prompt injection patterns (system override, role-play escape, delimiter injection)\n- [ ] PII detection identifies and redacts email addresses, phone numbers, SSNs, and credit card numbers in user inputs\n- [ ] Topic restriction guardrails refuse off-policy queries and allow on-policy queries without false positives\n- [ ] Output guardrails detect and flag responses containing toxic content, PII leakage, or off-topic material\n- [ ] The guardrails pipeline adds less than 200ms of latency to the request\u002Fresponse cycle for input-only validation\n- [ ] JSON output mode produces valid, parseable JSON suitable for downstream monitoring dashboards\n\n## Key Concepts\n\n| Term | Definition |\n|------|------------|\n| **Input Rail** | A guardrail that intercepts and validates user input before it reaches the LLM, blocking injection attempts and redacting sensitive data |\n| **Output Rail** | A guardrail that validates LLM-generated output before it reaches the user, filtering toxic content and enforcing schema compliance |\n| **Colang** | NVIDIA's domain-specific language for defining conversational guardrail flows, with Python-like syntax for specifying user intent patterns and bot responses |\n| **PII Redaction** | The process of detecting and masking personally identifiable information (names, emails, SSNs) in text before processing |\n| **Content Policy** | A configuration file defining which topics, patterns, and content categories are allowed or blocked by the guardrail system |\n| **Self-Check Rail** | A NeMo Guardrails technique where the LLM itself evaluates whether its input or output violates defined policies |\n| **Hallucination Detection** | Output validation that checks whether the LLM response is grounded in the provided context, flagging fabricated claims |\n\n## Tools & Systems\n\n- **NVIDIA NeMo Guardrails**: Open-source toolkit for adding programmable input, dialog, and output rails to LLM applications using Colang flow definitions and YAML configuration\n- **Guardrails AI**: Python framework for structured output validation with a hub of pre-built validators for PII, toxicity, JSON schema compliance, and more\n- **Microsoft Presidio**: Open-source PII detection and anonymization engine supporting 30+ entity types with configurable NLP backends\n- **Colang 2.0**: Event-driven interaction modeling language for defining guardrail flows with Python-like syntax, supporting multi-turn dialog control\n- **OpenAI Guardrails Python**: OpenAI's client-side guardrails library for prompt injection detection and content policy enforcement\n","# Implementing LLM Guardrails for Security\n\n## When to Use\n\n- Deploying a new LLM-powered application that processes user input and needs input\u002Foutput safety controls\n- Adding content policy enforcement to an existing chatbot or AI agent to comply with organizational policies\n- Implementing PII detection and redaction in LLM pipelines handling sensitive customer data\n- Building topic-restricted AI assistants that must refuse off-topic or disallowed queries\n- Validating that LLM responses conform to expected schemas before they reach downstream systems or users\n- Protecting RAG pipelines from indirect prompt injection in retrieved documents\n\n**Do not use** as a replacement for proper authentication, authorization, and network security controls. Guardrails are a defense-in-depth layer, not a perimeter defense. Not suitable for real-time content moderation of user-to-user communication without LLM involvement.\n\n## Prerequisites\n\n- Python 3.10+ with pip for installing guardrail dependencies\n- An OpenAI API key or local LLM endpoint for NeMo Guardrails self-check rails (set as `OPENAI_API_KEY` environment variable)\n- The `nemoguardrails` package for Colang-based guardrail definitions\n- The `guardrails-ai` package for structured output validation (optional, for JSON schema enforcement)\n- Familiarity with YAML configuration and basic Colang 2.0 syntax for defining rail flows\n\n## Workflow\n\n### Step 1: Install Guardrail Frameworks\n\nInstall the required Python packages:\n\n```bash\n# Core NeMo Guardrails library\npip install nemoguardrails\n\n# Guardrails AI for structured output validation (optional)\npip install guardrails-ai\n\n# Additional dependencies for PII detection and content analysis\npip install presidio-analyzer presidio-anonymizer spacy\npython -m spacy download en_core_web_lg\n```\n\n### Step 2: Run the Guardrails Security Agent\n\nThe agent implements a complete input\u002Foutput validation pipeline:\n\n```bash\n# Analyze a single input through all guardrail layers\npython agent.py --input \"Tell me how to hack into a system\"\n\n# Analyze input with a custom content policy file\npython agent.py --input \"Some text\" --policy policy.json\n\n# Scan a file of prompts through the guardrail pipeline\npython agent.py --file prompts.txt --mode full\n\n# Input-only validation (no LLM call, just check if input is safe)\npython agent.py --input \"Some text\" --mode input-only\n\n# Output validation mode (validate a pre-generated LLM response)\npython agent.py --input \"User question\" --response \"LLM response to validate\" --mode output-only\n\n# PII detection and redaction mode\npython agent.py --input \"My SSN is 123-45-6789 and email john@example.com\" --mode pii\n\n# JSON output for pipeline integration\npython agent.py --file prompts.txt --output json\n```\n\n### Step 3: Configure Content Policies\n\nCreate a JSON policy file defining allowed topics, blocked patterns, and PII categories:\n\n```json\n{\n  \"allowed_topics\": [\"customer_support\", \"product_info\", \"billing\"],\n  \"blocked_topics\": [\"politics\", \"violence\", \"illegal_activities\", \"competitor_products\"],\n  \"blocked_patterns\": [\"how to hack\", \"create malware\", \"bypass security\"],\n  \"pii_categories\": [\"PERSON\", \"EMAIL_ADDRESS\", \"PHONE_NUMBER\", \"US_SSN\", \"CREDIT_CARD\"],\n  \"max_output_length\": 2000,\n  \"require_grounded_response\": true\n}\n```\n\n### Step 4: Integrate NeMo Guardrails with Colang\n\nCreate a NeMo Guardrails configuration directory with `config.yml` and Colang flow files:\n\n```yaml\n# config.yml\nmodels:\n  - type: main\n    engine: openai\n    model: gpt-4o-mini\n\nrails:\n  input:\n    flows:\n      - self check input\n      - check jailbreak\n      - mask sensitive data on input\n  output:\n    flows:\n      - self check output\n      - check hallucination\n```\n\n```colang\n# rails.co - Colang 2.0 flow definitions\ndefine user ask about hacking\n  \"How do I hack into a system\"\n  \"Tell me how to break into a network\"\n  \"How to exploit vulnerabilities\"\n\ndefine bot refuse hacking request\n  \"I cannot provide instructions on unauthorized hacking or security exploitation.\n   If you are interested in cybersecurity, I can suggest legitimate learning resources\n   and ethical hacking certifications.\"\n\ndefine flow\n  user ask about hacking\n  bot refuse hacking request\n```\n\n### Step 5: Deploy as a Validation Middleware\n\nIntegrate the guardrails into your application as middleware:\n\n```python\nfrom agent import GuardrailsPipeline\n\npipeline = GuardrailsPipeline(policy_path=\"policy.json\")\n\n# Pre-LLM input validation\ninput_result = pipeline.validate_input(\"user message here\")\nif not input_result[\"safe\"]:\n    return input_result[\"blocked_reason\"]\n\n# Post-LLM output validation\nllm_response = your_llm.generate(input_result[\"sanitized_input\"])\noutput_result = pipeline.validate_output(llm_response, context=input_result)\nif not output_result[\"safe\"]:\n    return output_result[\"fallback_response\"]\n\nreturn output_result[\"validated_response\"]\n```\n\n### Step 6: Monitor Guardrail Effectiveness\n\nReview guardrail logs to track block rates, false positives, and bypass attempts:\n\n```bash\n# Generate a summary report from guardrail logs\npython agent.py --file interaction_logs.txt --mode full --output json > guardrail_audit.json\n```\n\n## Verification\n\n- [ ] Input guardrails correctly block known prompt injection patterns (system override, role-play escape, delimiter injection)\n- [ ] PII detection identifies and redacts email addresses, phone numbers, SSNs, and credit card numbers in user inputs\n- [ ] Topic restriction guardrails refuse off-policy queries and allow on-policy queries without false positives\n- [ ] Output guardrails detect and flag responses containing toxic content, PII leakage, or off-topic material\n- [ ] The guardrails pipeline adds less than 200ms of latency to the request\u002Fresponse cycle for input-only validation\n- [ ] JSON output mode produces valid, parseable JSON suitable for downstream monitoring dashboards\n\n## Key Concepts\n\n| Term | Definition |\n|------|------------|\n| **Input Rail** | A guardrail that intercepts and validates user input before it reaches the LLM, blocking injection attempts and redacting sensitive data |\n| **Output Rail** | A guardrail that validates LLM-generated output before it reaches the user, filtering toxic content and enforcing schema compliance |\n| **Colang** | NVIDIA's domain-specific language for defining conversational guardrail flows, with Python-like syntax for specifying user intent patterns and bot responses |\n| **PII Redaction** | The process of detecting and masking personally identifiable information (names, emails, SSNs) in text before processing |\n| **Content Policy** | A configuration file defining which topics, patterns, and content categories are allowed or blocked by the guardrail system |\n| **Self-Check Rail** | A NeMo Guardrails technique where the LLM itself evaluates whether its input or output violates defined policies |\n| **Hallucination Detection** | Output validation that checks whether the LLM response is grounded in the provided context, flagging fabricated claims |\n\n## Tools & Systems\n\n- **NVIDIA NeMo Guardrails**: Open-source toolkit for adding programmable input, dialog, and output rails to LLM applications using Colang flow definitions and YAML configuration\n- **Guardrails AI**: Python framework for structured output validation with a hub of pre-built validators for PII, toxicity, JSON schema compliance, and more\n- **Microsoft Presidio**: Open-source PII detection and anonymization engine supporting 30+ entity types with configurable NLP backends\n- **Colang 2.0**: Event-driven interaction modeling language for defining guardrail flows with Python-like syntax, supporting multi-turn dialog control\n- **OpenAI Guardrails Python**: OpenAI's client-side guardrails library for prompt injection detection and content policy enforcement\n",{"name":5,"tags":54,"author":9,"domain":40,"license":15,"version":58,"nist_csf":59,"subdomain":64,"description":65,"nist_ai_rmf":66,"mitre_attack":72,"atlas_techniques":77,"d3fend_techniques":83},[55,56,57,34,33],"LLM-guardrails","NeMo-Guardrails","input-validation","1.0.0",[60,61,62,63],"GV.OC-03","ID.RA-01","PR.PS-01","DE.AE-02","ai-security","Implements input\u002Foutput validation guardrails for LLM applications using NVIDIA NeMo Guardrails (Colang), custom Python validators for PII detection, and the Guardrails AI framework, intercepting user inputs (prompt injection, PII, off-topic queries) and model outputs (hallucinations, toxic content, schema compliance). Use when adding safety controls to an LLM app\u002Fchatbot\u002FRAG pipeline or validating outputs conform to expected schemas.\n",[67,68,69,70,71],"GOVERN-1.1","GOVERN-6.1","MEASURE-2.7","MEASURE-2.5","MANAGE-2.4",[73,74,75,76],"T1078","T1190","T1059","T1055",[78,79,80,81,82],"AML.T0051","AML.T0054","AML.T0056","AML.T0057","AML.T0062",[84,85,86,87,88],"Content Validation","Content Filtering","Content Excision","Application Hardening","Execution Isolation","main","54a798831d2266a3ca61ce68a7acb80b81160d57","skills\u002Fimplementing-llm-guardrails-for-security",4379,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills","https:\u002F\u002Fmahipal.engineer\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002F","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975","Mahipal.engineer","🔐 Cybersecurity | 💻 Dev | 📷 Street Photographer\r\n🎓 MSc | 📚 Research & AI Security","2026-08-31 12:32:44",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":100,"prompt":110,"zipAvailable":111},[101,104,107],{"tool":102,"command":103},"npx","npx skills add mukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills --skill implementing-llm-guardrails-for-security",{"tool":105,"command":106},"bunx","bunx skills add mukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills --skill implementing-llm-guardrails-for-security",{"tool":108,"command":109},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add mukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills --skill implementing-llm-guardrails-for-security","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fimplementing-llm-guardrails-for-security\u002FSKILL.md",true,[113,118,124],{"path":114,"resourceType":114,"resourceTypeDesc":115,"sizeBytes":116,"sourceHtmlUrl":117},"LICENSE","许可证",11255,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fimplementing-llm-guardrails-for-security\u002FLICENSE",{"path":119,"resourceType":120,"resourceTypeDesc":121,"sizeBytes":122,"sourceHtmlUrl":123},"references\u002Fapi-reference.md","REFERENCE","参考文档",7186,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fimplementing-llm-guardrails-for-security\u002Freferences\u002Fapi-reference.md",{"path":125,"resourceType":126,"resourceTypeDesc":127,"sizeBytes":128,"sourceHtmlUrl":129},"scripts\u002Fagent.py","SCRIPT","脚本",22070,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fimplementing-llm-guardrails-for-security\u002Fscripts\u002Fagent.py",[131,155,179,206,232,258],{"skillNo":132,"name":133,"nameZh":6,"description":134,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":135,"categories":136,"keywords":138,"publishedAt":49},"01M6AGDM3HJXTKXX15ZZ0ZVCJ3","verifying-build-provenance-with-slsa-sigstore","Verifies artifact signatures and SLSA provenance using Sigstore's cosign (verify, verify-attestation, verify-blob-attestation) and slsa-verifier (verify-artifact), enforcing keyless OIDC builder identity and source repo against SLSA Build levels. Use in CI\u002FCD before deploying artifacts, when consuming third-party attestations, establishing a SLSA Build L3 pipeline, or confirming provenance during incident response or admission control.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fverifying-build-provenance-with-slsa-sigstore\u002FSKILL.md",[137],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[139,140,141,142,31,40,143,144,46,145,146,147,148,42,149,150,151,152,153,154],"sigstore","provenance","slsa","verifying build provenance with slsa sigstore","incident response","identity","code","artifacts","ci","supply-chain","supply-chain-security","t1195","attestation","code-signing","cosign","keyless",{"skillNo":156,"name":157,"nameZh":6,"description":158,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":159,"categories":160,"keywords":162,"publishedAt":49},"01M6AGDGBPWYVZ2F11GFKJ4HZ9","validating-tpm-measured-boot-attestation","Verifies TPM 2.0 measured-boot integrity and remote attestation with tpm2-tools -- reading PCRs (tpm2_pcrread), replaying the boot event log, generating and checking signed quotes (tpm2_quote\u002Ftpm2_checkquote), and sealing secrets to a PCR policy. Use to confirm a system booted trusted firmware\u002Fkernel for Zero Trust device posture, detect boot-chain tampering via PCR drift, or build a golden-value baseline for fleet attestation.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fvalidating-tpm-measured-boot-attestation\u002FSKILL.md",[161],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[163,151,164,165,31,166,40,46,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178],"boot","TPM","validating tpm measured boot attestation","policy","verification","ZeRO","firmware","Tools","measured-boot","PCR","integrity","secrets","remote-attestation","tpm2-tools","integrity-verification","trusted-computing",{"skillNo":180,"name":181,"nameZh":6,"description":182,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":183,"categories":184,"keywords":189,"publishedAt":49},"01M6AGDCW0Y4FXZ3362GT1941M","validating-backup-integrity-for-recovery","Validates backup integrity through cryptographic hash verification, automated restore testing, corruption detection, and recoverability checks to confirm backups are reliable for disaster recovery and ransomware response. Use before relying on backups for recovery, when building post-backup validation pipelines, auditing backup infrastructure for compliance, or checking immutable\u002Fair-gapped backups for silent corruption or tampering.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fvalidating-backup-integrity-for-recovery\u002FSKILL.md",[185,188],{"categoryNo":186,"categoryName":187,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量",{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[173,190,191,192,193,40,194,195,167,196,197,198,199,200,201,38,202,203,204,205],"backup","recovery","validating backup integrity for recovery","testing","infrastructure","validation","compliance","hash-verification","incident-response","ransomware","cryptocurrency","detection","t1490","immutable","disaster-recovery","restore-testing",{"skillNo":207,"name":208,"nameZh":6,"description":209,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":210,"categories":211,"keywords":213,"publishedAt":49},"01M6AGD9GBG2KZ336AE763J3WH","triaging-windows-with-kape","Runs KAPE (Kroll Artifact Parser and Extractor) to collect targeted forensic artifacts (registry hives, $MFT, event logs, prefetch, browser data) via Targets and parse them with Modules wrapping Eric Zimmerman's EZ Tools (PECmd, MFTECmd, RECmd). Use during early incident containment\u002Ftriage when full disk imaging is impractical but a defensible, parseable Windows artifact set is needed quickly, including at-scale remote collection.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Ftriaging-windows-with-kape\u002FSKILL.md",[212],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[214,215,216,40,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,170,229,230,231],"windows","kape","triaging windows with kape","registry","browser","logs","windows-forensics","dfir","mft","mftecmd","data","prefetch","eric-zimmerman","digital-forensics","SET","collection","pecmd","artifact-collection",{"skillNo":233,"name":234,"nameZh":6,"description":235,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":236,"categories":237,"keywords":239,"publishedAt":49},"01M6AGD5PW5J4EVZM958WD74ZQ","triaging-vulnerabilities-with-ssvc-framework","Triages and prioritizes vulnerabilities with CISA's Stakeholder-Specific Vulnerability Categorization (SSVC) decision tree, weighing exploitation status (via the CISA KEV catalog and FIRST EPSS API), technical impact, automatability, and mission prevalence to output Track\u002FTrack*\u002FAttend\u002FAct decisions. Use when prioritizing vulnerability scan results (OpenVAS, Nessus, Qualys) for remediation planning beyond raw CVSS scores.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Ftriaging-vulnerabilities-with-ssvc-framework\u002FSKILL.md",[238],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[240,45,241,40,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,250,251,252,253,254,255,256,257],"vulnerabilities","triaging vulnerabilities with ssvc framework","status","planning","CISA","vulnerability-management","risk-management","nessus","qualys","openvas","cvss","remediation","risk","vulnerability","api","prioritization","ssvc","decision-tree",{"skillNo":259,"name":260,"nameZh":6,"description":261,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":262,"categories":263,"keywords":265,"publishedAt":49},"01M6AGD24TTQQM4CXG69E3B9TJ","triaging-security-incident","Performs initial triage of security incidents using the NIST SP 800-61r3 and SANS PICERL frameworks, classifying incident type, assigning priority by business impact, and routing to the appropriate response team. Use when a SIEM\u002FEDR alert needs human classification, concurrent alerts must be prioritized, or a user report or threat-intel IOC match requires initial incident categorization.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Ftriaging-security-incident\u002FSKILL.md",[264],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[31,266,40,267,268,269,270,271,272,273,274,38,275,202,276,277,278,279,280,281],"triaging security incident","siem","file","ioc","soc","NIST-800-61","NIST","severity","edr","execution","analysis","classification","severity-classification","incident-triage","SANS-PICERL","SOC-operations"]