| name | security-liability-audit |
| description | Combined technical security and legal liability audit for code changes. Covers LLM/AI security, OWASP Top 10, agentic security (Lethal Trifecta), secrets detection, desktop app security, dependency supply chain, AND legal/liability risk (GDPR, EU AI Act, ToS/EULA coverage, data protection, consumer rights, cross-border transfers). Designed for solo developers in the EU serving a worldwide userbase. Use when: completing a feature implementation, before release, after any change that touches security-sensitive areas, AI features, data handling, payment logic, or user-facing terms. Triggers on "/security-liability-audit" or as a step in session-post-implementation.
|
Security & Liability Audit
Perform a combined technical security and legal liability review of recent code changes.
Announce: "Running security & liability audit on recent changes."
Scope Detection
Determine what to audit:
- If dispatched by session-post-implementation: audit uncommitted + recent commit changes
- If invoked standalone: use
git diff (uncommitted) or git diff HEAD~1 (last commit)
- If argument provided (e.g.,
HEAD~3..HEAD): use that range
Run git diff --stat to get the list of changed files. Read full files for context around changes.
Part A: Technical Security
Read references/technical-security.md for the full pattern library. Apply these checks to changed files:
A1: Secrets Scan
Grep changed files for known secret prefixes (AWS, OpenAI, GitHub, Slack, Stripe patterns). Check .env handling and frontend env var exposure.
A2: LLM/AI Security
If changes touch LLM/AI code: check for prompt injection vectors, unsanitized AI output rendering, code execution of AI responses, unvalidated tool calls, and unbounded LLM cost exposure.
A3: Agentic Security
If changes touch agent/tool/MCP code: run the Lethal Trifecta assessment (private data access + untrusted content + exfiltration vectors). Verify security boundaries are OS-enforced, not prompt-enforced.
A4: OWASP Checks
Apply focused OWASP Top 10 checks to changed code: injection (SQL, command, path traversal), broken access control, security misconfiguration, authentication issues, data integrity, SSRF.
A5: Desktop App Security
If changes touch Tauri/IPC/webview code: check IPC argument validation, webview isolation, auto-update signing, filesystem access scoping, deep link parameter validation.
A6: Dependency Supply Chain
If dependencies changed: run audit tool, check for install scripts in prod deps, verify lockfile tracked.
A7: Webhook/Integration Security
If changes touch webhook or integration code: verify signature checking, TLS verification, OAuth scope minimization.
Part B: Liability & Legal
Read references/legal-liability.md for the full legal framework reference. Apply these checks to the nature of the changes:
B1: ToS/EULA Coverage
Does the change introduce behavior not covered by the current Terms of Use?
- New data collection not mentioned in privacy policy
- New AI feature without adequate disclaimer
- New third-party integration without pass-through disclaimer
- New payment/subscription logic without clear terms
- Feature removal that may violate conformity obligations
B2: Privacy & GDPR
Does the change affect personal data handling?
- New personal data fields collected
- Data sent to a new third party (DPA needed?)
- Changed retention periods or storage locations
- New analytics/tracking added
- Cross-border transfer to non-EU processor
B3: AI Liability
Does the change affect how AI output is presented or used?
- AI output shown without disclaimer
- AI output made to look more authoritative
- AI used in high-consequence domains (finance, health, legal)
- AI taking autonomous actions without user confirmation
- Transparency notices missing or weakened
B4: Consumer Protection
Does the change affect the commercial relationship?
- Subscription/payment changes without clear disclosure
- Cancellation flow made harder
- Feature degradation for existing users
- Auto-renewal without notice mechanism
B5: Data Transfer
Does the change introduce new cross-border data flows?
- New AI provider (check DPF/SCC status)
- New cloud service in non-EU jurisdiction
- User data sent to new endpoint
Confidence Filtering
Apply confidence-based filtering before reporting. See references/technical-security.md Section 8 for the full ruleset.
- Technical findings: >= 80% confidence to report. Hard exclusions apply.
- Legal findings: flag as ADVISORY (not bugs but risk gaps). No confidence gate, but label uncertainty clearly.
Output Format
Technical Findings
TECHNICAL SECURITY FINDINGS
============================
# Sev Conf Status Category Finding File:Line
-- ---- ---- ------ -------- ------- ---------
1 CRIT 9/10 VERIFIED Secrets API key in source src/api.ts:42
2 HIGH 8/10 UNVERIFIED LLM Security User input in sys prompt pkb/agent.py:88
For each finding include: severity, confidence, status, category, description, exploit scenario (for technical), and recommendation.
Legal/Liability Findings
LIABILITY ADVISORIES
====================
# Priority Category Advisory Action Required
-- -------- -------- -------- ---------------
1 HIGH GDPR New data field not in privacy policy Update privacy policy
2 HIGH AI Liability AI feature lacks output disclaimer Add disclaimer
3 MEDIUM Consumer Subscription change needs notice Add renewal notice
For each advisory include: priority, category, what's missing, what to do, and which document to update (ToS, Privacy Policy, in-app notice).
Summary
AUDIT SUMMARY
=============
Technical: N critical, N high, N medium
Liability: N high, N medium, N low advisories
Verdict: PASS / NEEDS FIXES / NEEDS LEGAL REVIEW
Verdicts:
- PASS โ No critical/high technical findings AND no high liability advisories
- NEEDS FIXES โ Critical or high technical findings exist
- NEEDS LEGAL REVIEW โ High liability advisories exist (recommend legal counsel review)
- BLOCKED โ Both technical and legal issues found
Escalation
If the audit finds issues beyond what code changes can fix (e.g., ToS needs rewriting, DPA needed with a vendor), clearly state:
ESCALATION: [Category]
ACTION: [What needs to happen]
WHO: [Developer / Legal counsel / Third-party vendor]
URGENCY: [Before release / Next iteration / When convenient]
Important Rules
- No code changes. This audit produces findings and recommendations only.
- Confidence gate on technical findings. Below 80% = do not report.
- Legal findings are advisories, not bugs. Label them clearly as risk gaps.
- Legal disclaimer. Always end with: "This audit is not legal advice. For binding legal opinions on liability, GDPR compliance, or contract terms, consult a qualified attorney."
- Framework-aware. Know your framework's built-in protections.
- Solo dev perspective. Prioritize findings by actual risk to a solo developer with limited resources. A theoretical GDPR fine matters less than a real secret leak.
When to Recommend /cso
If the audit discovers systemic security concerns (not just point findings in the diff), recommend running a full /cso audit. Examples:
- Multiple secret pattern matches suggesting systemic secret management issues
- No webhook signature verification anywhere in the codebase
- Complete absence of auth on public endpoints
- Supply chain concerns (many unaudited deps with install scripts)
