security-review
Perform a focused security review using STRIDE threat modeling, code inspection, and exploitability checks. Use when the user asks for a security review of a repository, pull request, or change set.
- License 许可
- MIT
- 最近更新
- 2026-09-20
- Stars
- ★ 4
- Forks
- 0
01 前言 Front Matter
- name
- security-review
- description
- Perform a focused security review using STRIDE threat modeling, code inspection, and exploitability checks. Use when the user asks for a security review of a repository, pull request, or change set.
- user-invocable
- false
03 SKILL.md 正文
Security Review
Conduct a focused security review using the repository threat model plus direct code inspection.
Prerequisites
- A git repository to review
- A threat model at
.agent-security/threat-model.md
If the threat model is missing, generate it first with the threat-model skill.
Workflow
1. Confirm Review Scope
Determine whether this is:
- A PR review
- A staged-change review
- A branch comparison
- A full repository audit
2. Load the Threat Model
Read:
.agent-security/threat-model.md.agent-security/security-config.jsonif present
3. Inspect the Relevant Code
Review changed files and related code paths for STRIDE issues:
- Spoofing
- Tampering
- Repudiation
- Information disclosure
- Denial of service
- Elevation of privilege
4. Validate Findings
For each finding, assess:
- Reachability
- Attacker control
- Existing mitigations
- Real exploitability
5. Produce Structured Output
Write validated results to:
.agent-security/validated-findings.json
Then summarize:
- Confirmed findings
- Rejected findings
- Severity distribution
- Concrete remediation priorities
Gotchas
- Do not report theoretical issues without a reachability check.
- Threat-model alignment matters: review findings in system context, not in isolation.
- If a suspicious pattern is framework-mitigated, say so explicitly.
04 同仓库更多 Skills
writing-shape
Take a markdown file of raw material and shape it into an article through a conversational session — drafting candidate openings, growing the piece paragraph by paragraph, arguing about format (lists, tables, callouts, quotes) at each step. Use when the user has a pile of notes, fragments, or a rough draft and wants help turning it into something publishable.
writing-fragments
Grilling session that mines the user for fragments — heterogeneous nuggets of writing (claims, vignettes, sharp sentences, half-thoughts) — and appends them to a single document as raw material for a future article. Use when the user wants to develop ideas before imposing structure, or mentions "fragments", "ideate", or "raw material" for writing.
writing-beats
Shape an article as a journey of beats, choose-your-own-adventure style. The user picks a starting beat from the raw material, you write only that beat, then offer options for where to pivot next, beat by beat, until the article reaches a natural end. Use when the user has raw material and wants to assemble it as a narrative rather than an argument.
stop-slop
Remove AI writing patterns from prose. Use when drafting, editing, or reviewing text to eliminate predictable AI tells.
humanizer
Remove signs of AI-generated writing from text. Use when editing or reviewing text to make it sound more natural and human-written. Based on Wikipedia's comprehensive "Signs of AI writing" guide. Detects and fixes patterns including: inflated symbolism, promotional language, superficial -ing analyses, vague attributions, em dash overuse, rule of three, AI vocabulary words, passive voice, negative parallelisms, and filler phrases.
feedback
Prepare, deliver, and debrief timely interpersonal feedback using a question-first coaching flow, observable behavior, owned experience, and concrete impact. Use when drafting feedback, coaching managers, rehearsing a feedback conversation, praising specific behavior, or reviewing whether feedback landed.