القائمة
Audit changed code for security sharp edges — dangerous defaults, type confusion, and silent failures
يُحدَّد Prompt الذي يراجع المصدر أولًا بشكل افتراضي. يمكنك التبديل إلى أمر مباشر أو تنزيل نسخة محلية.
اقرأ SKILL.md وأي ملفات مرافقة يعرضها SkillsMP قبل أن تقرر التثبيت.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
يتجاوز الأمر المباشر Prompt المخصّص للمراجعة. افحص المصدر قبل تشغيله.
npx skills add https://github.com/chenwei791129/hermes-usage-hook --skill spectra-auditيبقى الأمر في سطر واحد. مرّر أفقيًا لمراجعته كاملًا قبل النسخ.
تفضّل نسخة محلية؟ نزّل الملفات المتاحة حاليًا لدى SkillsMP.
عرض SKILL.md
| name | spectra-audit |
| description | Audit changed code for security sharp edges — dangerous defaults, type confusion, and silent failures |
| effort | xhigh |
| context | fork |
| agent | Explore |
| disallowedTools | ["Edit","Write"] |
| license | MIT |
| compatibility | Requires spectra CLI. |
| metadata | {"author":"spectra","version":"1.0","generatedBy":"Spectra"} |
Audit changed code for security sharp edges in a Claude Code fork. This generated skill is report-only: it SHALL NOT edit files and SHALL NOT apply fixes directly inside the fork.
Run git diff HEAD to gather the current changes. If there are no changes, report that no security sharp edges were found and stop.
Analyze the diff through the Scoundrel, Lazy Developer, and Confused Developer lenses. Return a consolidated report with findings grouped by severity, affected files, and recommended fixes. The main thread decides whether to apply any fixes.
| Role | Mindset | Key Questions |
|---|---|---|
| Scoundrel | Malicious, deliberate exploitation | Can I disable security via config? Downgrade algorithms? Inject values? |
| Lazy Developer | Copy-paste, skips docs, deadline pressure | Is the first example safe? Is the default secure? Do errors guide me right? |
| Confused Developer | Misunderstands usage | Can I swap params silently? Will mistakes fail loudly? Are types distinguishable? |
Letting developers choose algorithms = inviting them to choose wrong.
# Dangerous: accepts arbitrary algorithm
OpenSSL::Digest.new(algorithm).hexdigest(password) # algorithm = "md5"?
# Safe: no choice
BCrypt::Password.create(password) # can't pick wrong
Defaults that are insecure, or zero/empty values that disable security.
# What does timeout=0 mean? Never expire? Expire immediately?
def verify_token(token, timeout: 300)
return true if timeout ==
Key question: What do timeout=0, max_attempts=0, key="", nil each mean?
Using raw bytes/strings instead of meaningful types invites type confusion.
# Dangerous: both params are strings, swappable
encrypt(message, key, nonce)
# Safe: types protect against swapping
encrypt(message, Key.new(k), Nonce.new(n))
One wrong config value = disaster, with no warning.
# A typo = security mechanism disappears
verify_ssl: fasle # not "false", might be treated as truthy?
# Dangerous combination
auth_required: true
bypass_auth_for_health: true
health_check_path: "/" # oops, entire site bypasses auth
Security errors that don't surface, or "success" masking failure.
# Silent bypass
def verify_signature(sig, data, key)
return true if key.nil? # no key = skip verification?!
end
# Return value ignored
result = crypto.verify(data, sig) # returns false but nobody checks
Security-critical values as plain strings = open door for injection and confusion.
# Dangerous: string concatenation
permissions = "read,write"
permissions += ",admin" # too easy to escalate
# Safe: use enums
permissions = Set[Permission::READ, Permission::WRITE]
| Severity | Condition | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Default or most obvious usage is insecure | verify: false is default, empty password accepted |
| High | Easy misconfiguration breaks security | Algorithm param accepts "none" |
| Medium | Uncommon but possible misconfiguration | Negative timeout has unexpected behavior |
| Low | Requires deliberate misuse | Obscure parameter combination |
| Excuse | Why It's Wrong | What To Do |
|---|---|---|
| "Docs explain it" | Devs skip docs under deadlines | Make the safe option the default or only option |
| "Advanced users need flexibility" | Flexibility = foot-gun opportunity | Provide safe high-level API, hide low-level primitives |
| "It's the developer's responsibility" | You designed the trap | Remove the trap or make it impossible to misuse |
| "Nobody would do that" | Devs under pressure do everything | Assume maximum developer chaos |
| "It's just a config option" | Config is code; wrong config ships to prod | Validate config, reject dangerous combinations |
| "Backwards compatibility" | Insecure defaults can't be grandfathered | Deprecate loudly, force migration |