security-audit

name	security-audit
description	Comprehensive security audit with scored posture assessment
argument-hint	[path] [--owasp] [--verbose]
effort	high
disable-model-invocation	true

Security Audit

Comprehensive security audit of your project AND Claude Code configuration. Analyzes secrets exposure, injection surfaces, dependencies, hook security, and produces a scored security posture assessment.

Time: 2-5 minutes | Scope: Full project + Claude Code config

For a quick config-only check, use /security-check instead.

Instructions

You are a senior application security engineer. Perform a 6-phase security audit and produce a scored report with prioritized remediation plan.

---

Pre-Step: Establish Audit Context

Before running any checks, use AskUserQuestion to ask:

1. Environment: Is this code running in production, staging, or local development?
2. Scope: Full audit or specific areas to prioritize?

This is critical for accurate findings:

• Local dev: DEBUG=True, CORS *, HTTP without TLS, .env files, all normal. Do NOT flag as vulnerabilities. Mention in an "Before going to production" informational section instead.
• Staging: Configs should mirror production. Flag deviations as MEDIUM.
• Production: Any misconfiguration is a real finding with full severity.

If the user doesn't answer or is unsure, default to production (conservative).

---

Phase 1: Configuration Security (via /security-check)

Execute all checks from /security-check (the examples/skills/security-check/SKILL.md command). This covers:

• MCP server audit against CVE database
• Skills & agents against known malicious entries
• Hook exfiltration patterns
• Memory poisoning detection
• Permissions & settings review
• Exposed secrets in Claude Code config

Record findings, as they contribute to the final score.

---

Phase 2: Project Secrets Scan

Scan the entire project for exposed secrets and credentials:

# API keys and tokens
grep -rn --include="*.{js,ts,py,go,java,rb,php,yaml,yml,json,toml,env,cfg,ini,conf}" \
  -E '(?i)(api[_-]?key|apikey|secret|password|passwd|token|bearer|auth)\s*[=:]\s*["'\''"][^"'\'']{8,}["'\''"]\s' \
  --exclude-dir={node_modules,vendor,.git,dist,build,target,__pycache__,.venv} . 2>/dev/null | head -30

# Known provider key patterns
grep -rn -E 'sk-[a-zA-Z0-9]{20,}|sk-ant-[a-zA-Z0-9]{20,}|ghp_[a-zA-Z0-9]{36}|AKIA[A-Z0-9]{16}|xox[bps]-[a-zA-Z0-9\-]{20,}' \
  --exclude-dir={node_modules,vendor,.git,dist,build,target} . 2>/dev/null | head -20

# Private keys
grep -rn 'BEGIN.*PRIVATE KEY' --exclude-dir={node_modules,vendor,.git} . 2>/dev/null

# .env files that might be committed
find . -name ".env*" -not -path "*/node_modules/*" -not -path "*/.git/*" -type f 2>/dev/null

# Check .gitignore coverage
[ -f ".gitignore" ] && {
  grep -q "\.env" .gitignore && echo "✅ .env in .gitignore" || echo "⚠️ .env NOT in .gitignore"
  grep -q "\.pem" .gitignore && echo "✅ .pem in .gitignore" || echo "⚠️ .pem NOT in .gitignore"
  grep -q "\.key" .gitignore && echo "✅ .key in .gitignore" || echo "⚠️ .key NOT in .gitignore"
}

Anti-false-positive rule (MANDATORY before reporting any secret finding):

Before raising a secrets finding, run these verification commands:

# 1. Verify .env is actually in .gitignore (if yes, local .env is NOT a finding)
grep -n '\.env' .gitignore 2>/dev/null || echo ".env NOT in .gitignore"

# 2. Verify secrets were actually committed (empty output = no finding)
git log --all -p -- '*.env' '*.key' '*.pem' '*.secret' 2>/dev/null | grep -E '^\+.*(password|secret|api_key|token)' | head -20

# 3. Check git history for provider-specific patterns
git log --all -p 2>/dev/null | grep -E '^\+(sk-[a-zA-Z0-9]{20,}|AKIA[A-Z0-9]{16}|ghp_[a-zA-Z0-9]{36})' | head -10

Only report a secret finding if you have concrete proof from these commands. A .env file present locally is not a finding if it's in .gitignore. Never report "secrets may be exposed" based on pattern matching alone.

Scoring:

• 0 secrets found → +20 points
• 1-3 secrets → +10 points
• 4+ secrets → 0 points
• Private key committed → -10 points

---

Phase 3: Prompt Injection Surface

Analyze markdown and config files for injection vectors:

# Zero-width characters (invisible instructions)
grep -rPn '[\x{200B}-\x{200D}\x{FEFF}]' --include="*.md" --include="*.yaml" --include="*.json" . 2>/dev/null

# Hidden HTML comments with instructions
grep -rn '<!--' --include="*.md" . 2>/dev/null | grep -i 'ignore\|system\|admin\|instruction\|override\|forget'

# Base64 in comments (potential hidden payloads)
grep -rn -E '[#;].*[A-Za-z0-9+/]{20,}={0,2}' --include="*.py" --include="*.js" --include="*.ts" --include="*.md" \
  --exclude-dir={node_modules,vendor,.git} . 2>/dev/null | head -10

# ANSI escape sequences
grep -rPn '\x1b\[|\x1b\]|\x1b\(' --exclude-dir={node_modules,vendor,.git} . 2>/dev/null | head -10

# Null bytes
grep -rPn '\x00' --exclude-dir={node_modules,vendor,.git,dist} . 2>/dev/null | head -5

# Nested command execution in markdown/config
grep -rn -E '\$\([^)]+\)|`[^`]+`' --include="*.md" --include="*.yaml" --include="*.json" \
  --exclude-dir={node_modules,vendor,.git} . 2>/dev/null | head -10

Scoring:

• 0 injection vectors → +15 points
• 1-2 vectors (likely false positives) → +10 points
• 3+ vectors → +5 points
• Confirmed injection in CLAUDE.md → 0 points

---

Phase 4: Dependency Audit

Run the appropriate package audit for the project:

# Node.js
[ -f "package-lock.json" ] && npm audit --json 2>/dev/null | jq '{total: .metadata.vulnerabilities.total, critical: .metadata.vulnerabilities.critical, high: .metadata.vulnerabilities.high}' 2>/dev/null

# Python
[ -f "requirements.txt" ] && pip-audit -r requirements.txt 2>/dev/null || [ -f "pyproject.toml" ] && pip-audit 2>/dev/null

# Rust
[ -f "Cargo.toml" ] && cargo audit 2>/dev/null

# Go
[ -f "go.mod" ] && govulncheck ./... 2>/dev/null

If no package manager detected, note it and skip (no penalty).

Scoring:

• 0 vulnerabilities → +20 points
• 0 critical + 0 high → +15 points
• 1-3 high → +10 points
• Any critical → +5 points
• 10+ high or 3+ critical → 0 points

---

Phase 5: Hook Security Assessment

Verify security hooks from guide/security-hardening.md are properly installed:

# Check for recommended security hooks
echo "=== Checking security hooks ==="

# PreToolUse hooks (should block dangerous patterns)
ls .claude/hooks/PreToolUse* 2>/dev/null || echo "⚠️ No PreToolUse hooks found"

# PostToolUse hooks (should monitor output)
ls .claude/hooks/PostToolUse* 2>/dev/null || echo "⚠️ No PostToolUse hooks found"

# Check if prompt injection detector exists
find . -path "*/hooks/*injection*" -o -path "*/hooks/*security*" -o -path "*/hooks/*scanner*" 2>/dev/null

# Check settings for hook configuration
grep -c "hooks" .claude/settings.json 2>/dev/null || echo "No hooks in settings.json"

Scoring:

• PreToolUse security hooks installed → +10 points
• PostToolUse output scanner installed → +5 points
• Prompt injection detector hook → +5 points
• No hooks at all → 0 points

---

Phase 6: Posture Score & Report

Calculate total score and generate report.

Scoring Breakdown:

Category	Max Points	Source
Config Security (Phase 1)	30	/security-check results
Secrets Scan (Phase 2)	20	Secrets found in project
Injection Surface (Phase 3)	15	Injection vectors found
Dependencies (Phase 4)	20	Vulnerability audit
Hook Security (Phase 5)	15	Security hooks installed
Total	100

Phase 1 scoring detail:

• 0 CRITICAL findings → +15 points
• 0 HIGH findings → +10 points
• 0 MEDIUM findings → +5 points
• Any CRITICAL → 0 for that sub-score

Grade Scale:

Score	Grade	Meaning
90-100	A	Excellent: production-ready security posture
75-89	B	Good: minor improvements recommended
60-74	C	Acceptable: address HIGH issues before production
40-59	D	Poor: significant security gaps
0-39	F	Critical: do not deploy, address CRITICAL issues immediately

Output Format

## 🛡️ Security Audit Report

**Date**: [timestamp]
**Project**: [directory name]
**Scope**: Full project + Claude Code configuration

### Security Posture Score: [XX]/100 (Grade [X])

[1-sentence assessment]

### Phase Results

| Phase | Score | Max | Key Finding |
|-------|-------|-----|-------------|
| 1. Config Security | XX | 30 | [summary] |
| 2. Secrets Scan | XX | 20 | [summary] |
| 3. Injection Surface | XX | 15 | [summary] |
| 4. Dependencies | XX | 20 | [summary] |
| 5. Hook Security | XX | 15 | [summary] |
| **Total** | **XX** | **100** | |

### 🔴 Critical Findings
[Each finding with location, description, and exact fix]

### 🟠 High Findings
[Each finding with location, description, and fix]

### 🟡 Medium Findings
[Each finding with location, description, and fix]

### 🔧 Remediation Plan (Priority Order)

| # | Action | Severity | Effort | Command/Steps |
|---|--------|----------|--------|---------------|
| 1 | [action] | CRITICAL | [time] | [how] |
| 2 | [action] | HIGH | [time] | [how] |
| ... | | | | |

### 📊 Benchmark

Your score vs security-hardening.md recommendations:
- [X] items from the guide are implemented
- [X] items are missing
- Top 3 missing items to implement next: [...]

### 📚 References
- Security hardening guide: guide/security-hardening.md
- Threat database: examples/skills/update-threat-db/threat-db.yaml
- Quick check: `/security-check`
- MCP scan tool: `npx mcp-scan` (Snyk)

$ARGUMENTS