| name | memory-poisoning-review |
| description | Audit an agent's durable memory for poisoning risk and harden it against OWASP ASI06 — enumerate write paths reachable from untrusted input, classify read-only vs read-write, verify audit and rollback. Reach for this when a diff touches a memory store. |
Skill: Memory poisoning review (OWASP ASI06)
You were sent here by an inline prior on ravenclaude-core/security-reviewer, because the diff touches something that persists across sessions.
This is not a second rubric. It is a set of priors that extend the rubric you already run. Nothing below replaces your review; it tells you which of your existing sections to point at a durable store, what a finding looks like there, and where the severity line sits. You need no memory-engineering background to execute it.
The one thing that is different — read this first
You already know prompt injection. This is the same class with one property changed, and that property changes the fix:
A prompt injection ends when the turn ends. A poisoned memory keeps acting long after the session that planted it, and fixing the prompt does not fix the agent.
The vendor says it about its own product, which is the citation to use:
"If the agent processes untrusted input … a successful prompt injection could write malicious content into the store. Later sessions then read that content as trusted memory. Use read_only for reference material."
— Anthropic managed-agents memory documentation (retrieved 2026-08-06)
The operational consequence, and the thing to check for in the diff or the PR description: an incident response that patches the prompt and closes the ticket has fixed nothing. The response has to reach the store — find what was written, when, and by which session, and either roll it back or prove it was never read. If the change you are reviewing is a prompt fix for a bad-memory incident, that alone is a finding.
Where this attaches to your existing rubric
| Your section | The prior to add |
|---|
| §2 Input handling | The store is an input, to every future session — not a database the app owns. Trace each write back to its furthest upstream source, not to the function that called it |
| §1 Identity & Access | The model is a writer. Ask who may write to a namespace, not only who may call the endpoint |
| §7 Logging & observability | "Who wrote this entry, when, in which session" must be answerable before an incident, not during one |
| §8 Defaults & failure modes | Default the mount to read-only. A write path reachable from untrusted input is a permanent injection channel, not a bug to patch later |
Triage — five questions, in order
Stop at the first one that fires; each has a defined verdict.
Q1. Does this diff create, expand, or newly expose a path that writes something a later session reads?
A memory store, a memory-tool handler, an instruction or memory file the agent edits, a vector row, a summary that replaces the turns it summarizes, a cache treated as durable.
→ No — this skill does not apply. Return to your normal review and say so explicitly, so the next reviewer knows it was considered.
→ Yes — continue.
Q2. Can content originating from untrusted input reach that write path?
Untrusted means: a fetched page, a tool result, a file from outside the repo, another user's content, a subagent's output, or any ordinary user query whose text the model may echo into what it writes. That last one is the trap — the attacker needs no access to the store at all; they talk to the agent as a normal user, and the agent is the writer.
→ No, and you traced it — record the trace as evidence and go to Q4.
→ Yes, or you cannot tell — go to Q3. "Cannot tell" is a Yes for this purpose.
Q3. Is the reachable target mounted read-only, or scoped so the untrusted path cannot write it?
→ No — this is the Blocker shape. Write it up as one (see calibration below).
→ Yes — record which control enforces it and at what layer, then continue. A comment or a documented convention is not a control.
Q4. Can you answer "who wrote this entry, when, in which session" from an artifact that exists today?
→ No — you cannot scope the blast radius of any future incident. Versioning or an audit trail comes before anything else in this area.
→ Yes — continue.
Q5. Has rollback been performed, not just designed — and is a poisoned entry detectable?
→ No — the standing finding, and the step everyone skips. See "the test nobody runs" below.
The write-path trust boundary map
Six questions. Every one needs a written answer before the store takes its first write — the sheet for that is memory-threat-model.md. If the diff adds a store and the PR cannot answer these, that gap is the finding.
- Enumerate every write path into the store — including the ones the model drives, not only the ones your code calls.
- Trace each one back to the furthest upstream input. If a path terminates in a fetched page, a tool result, another user's content, a subagent's output, or a file from outside the repo, that path is reachable from untrusted input.
- Classify every store or namespace read-only or read-write, and mount reference material read-only.
- Verify the audit trail exists and is queryable.
- Verify rollback works, by doing it. Where there is no restore endpoint, rollback means retrieve-a-version-and-write-it-back — which itself creates a new version. Rehearse it.
- Test that a poisoned entry is detectable, not just that the prompt was fixed.
Three controls that actually exist, and one that does not
Most memory-security writing is exhortation. Prefer a control a platform ships:
| Control | What it does |
|---|
| Read-only mounts | The filesystem itself refuses the write. Access may be settable only at session creation, with no mid-session promotion — check when it is set, not just that it is |
| Immutable versions + a redaction operation | Every mutation creates a version: an audit trail and point-in-time recovery, with its own retention window. Redaction scrubs a historical version's content while preserving who/what/when |
| External-import approval gate | A project-level memory file importing a path outside the working directory triggers a one-time approval; declining disables those imports permanently. User-scope imports may bypass it |
Adjacent and worth naming: a content-hash precondition on writes gives optimistic concurrency — the shipped answer to two writers silently clobbering each other, which becomes a security problem the moment one of them is untrusted.
And the control that is not one: an instruction file is context, not enforced configuration. To block an action regardless of what the model decides, the answer is a hook or a permission deny. Never accept a threat model whose mitigation column says "documented in the memory file." Flag it every time.
Exact strings, statuses and caps for these controls are dated and live in memory surfaces (2026) — read them there rather than from recall, and carry the date.
The test nobody runs
Ask for one artifact: a test that fails when a poisoned entry is present and passes when it is not.
Almost every memory incident response tests that the prompt was fixed. That test passes on a still-poisoned store. If no such test exists, the finding is not "add a test" — it is that the team currently has no way to know whether the store is clean, which is a different and larger statement.
Severity calibration
You have no domain background here, so use these lines rather than intuition.
🔴 Blocker
- A write path reachable from untrusted input lands in a store that is later read as trusted, with no read-only scoping and no provenance on the entry.
- Reference material mounted read-write with no stated reason.
- No audit trail on a store whose contents influence agent actions — the blast radius of any incident is unbounded and unknowable.
- A stored value is treated as an authorization decision, a permission, a configuration, or a claim about the agent's own capabilities.
- An erasure or rollback path whose success is asserted from a return code that was never read back.
🟡 Concern
- Audit trail exists but has never been queried; rollback designed but never rehearsed.
- No detectability test for a poisoned entry.
- Provenance recorded in the chat or the PR rather than inline in the stored item — a basis that was spoken and not written launders into an unmarked, trusted-looking prior.
- Dedup or consolidation that merges entries from different trust levels without recording which source won.
✅ Done well — say so, specifically. Read-only by default, provenance stamped into the entry, a rehearsed rollback, and a detectability test are all worth naming so they survive the next refactor.
Boundaries — what this skill does not do
- It does not run the attack. Offensive testing of a memory store belongs to
ai-red-teaming. Recommend an engagement; do not improvise one.
- It does not make a legal determination. Whether the store holds personal data, and what a deletion request requires, routes to
data-governance-privacy and to counsel. The engineering residue a delete leaves behind is design-forgetting-policy.
- It does not choose the surface. If the diff has not decided who holds the bytes and who executes the write, that is map-memory-surface and it comes first.
The seam with the attack taxonomy, stated once so neither side drifts
ASI06 (Memory & context poisoning) is an attack-taxonomy entry owned by ai-red-teaming/knowledge/ai-attack-taxonomy-decision-tree.md :91 — that plugin scopes and executes the adversarial test. memory-engineering's memory-poisoning-review skill is the defensive design-time complement: trust-boundary mapping, read-only-vs-read-write classification, and audit/rollback verification a builder applies before an ASI06 red-team engagement — not a second copy of the taxonomy row.
Carried forward, not re-verified here: the ASI series is a 2026 edition, retrieved 2026-07-13 via search because the OWASP site returns 403 to automated fetch, and cross-referenced against the OWASP resource page plus four independent analyses. Category names and IDs shift between editions — re-verify the current edition before quoting an ID in a deliverable.
Attack shapes, the corroborating vendor warning, and the erasure-residue half: memory security and privacy.
Output
Fold your findings into your own Output Contract — verdict, threat model, Blockers, Concerns, Done well, Out of scope. Add three lines to the threat model paragraph that a normal review would not carry:
**Write paths reachable from untrusted input:** <path — furthest upstream source — read-only? — provenance stamped?>
**Audit & rollback:** <trail exists / queryable / rollback rehearsed on: date>
**Detectability:** <the test that fails on a poisoned entry, or: none exists>
