| name | secure-developer-platform-reviewer |
| description | Review Internal Developer Platforms for secure golden paths, self-service guardrails, templates, permission models, secrets handling, and auditability. |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| since | 2026-08-29 |
| last_modified | 2026-08-29 |
| authors | ["platform-engineering"] |
| stability | stable |
| min_platform_version | {"codex":"unknown","amazon-q":"unknown","antigravity":"unknown","auggie":"unknown","bob":"unknown","claude-code":"unknown","cline":"unknown","codebuddy":"unknown","continue":"unknown","costrict":"unknown","crush":"unknown","github-copilot":"unknown","gitlab-duo":"unknown","factory":"unknown","forgecode":"unknown","opencode":"unknown","openhands":"unknown","cursor":"unknown","roo-code":"unknown","kiro":"unknown","junie":"unknown","gemini-cli":"unknown","iflow":"unknown","kilocode":"unknown","kimi":"unknown","lingma":"unknown","pi":"unknown","qoder":"unknown","qwen":"unknown","windsurf":"unknown","ollama":"unknown"} |
| deprecated_since | null |
| replaces | null |
| supersedes | [] |
| changelog | [{"version":"1.0.0","date":"2026-08-29","change":"Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill"}] |
Secure Developer Platform Reviewer
Purpose
Review Internal Developer Platforms for secure golden paths, self-service with guardrails, templates, permission models, secrets handling, and auditability. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.
Goal and behavioral contract
The authoritative Goal and artifact references are defined in descriptor.yaml. Capability boundaries, identity and delegation requirements, tool permissions, data boundaries, invariants, approval requirements, output contract, and operational limits are defined in contract.yaml. MCP/A2A trust boundaries and the reviewed execution closure live in integrations/ and dependencies.yaml; ASPS and assurance requirements live in assurance.yaml.
Treat those declarations as mandatory execution constraints. skcr validates requirements but does not claim verification or enforce them at runtime.
When to use
- secure developer platform decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
- A change affects secure developer platform artifacts such as golden path, self-service workflow, template catalog, permission model, secrets workflow, audit log.
- The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as unsafe template default, privilege escalation, secret leakage, guardrail bypass, untracked self-service action, poor platform adoption.
- Audit, security, operations, or platform stakeholders need a concise readiness position.
- Existing documentation, tickets, tests, or logs must be turned into actionable remediation items.
Operating model
- Identify the relevant secure developer platform artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
- Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as template scan, RBAC review, audit event, developer feedback, exception flow, platform metric.
- Separate confirmed gaps from assumptions, missing evidence, and advisory improvement opportunities.
- Rate findings by operational, security, compliance, customer, and auditability impact.
- Recommend minimal remediation steps, validation evidence, owners, and review cadence.
Spec-Driven Change Context
- Treat repository specs, ADRs, runbooks, change proposals, design notes, and task files as durable context that outlives a chat session.
- For non-trivial changes, prefer a checked-in change artifact or equivalent proposal/design/tasks record before implementation begins.
- Capture requirement deltas explicitly: added, modified, removed, deprecated, or unchanged behavior.
