security-review

name	security-review
description	Run reusable cross-project security review with profile detection, OWASP Dependency-Check, ZAP container scanning, and risk-gated reporting
category	Git Workflow
tags	["security","owasp","dependency-check","zap","dast","sca","risk-gate"]
triggers	["security review","run security review","owasp scan","dependency check","zap scan"]

Security Review

Run a reusable security review workflow across repositories. This skill auto-detects project profile(s), executes compatible scanners, normalizes findings, and applies a deterministic risk gate.

The skill operates in two complementary modes:

• Preventive mode (this section, below) — applied while writing or reviewing code, before scanners are invoked. Catches whole categories of vulnerability through three-tier boundary rules and an OWASP Top 10 checklist.
• Scanner-runner mode (Steps 1–5 below) — applied to a built artifact / running service. Runs OWASP Dependency-Check (SCA) and ZAP (DAST) and applies a deterministic risk gate.

Both modes are mutually reinforcing: the preventive checklist eliminates the easy bugs so the scanners surface the hard ones. Run preventive mode on every change; run scanner-runner mode at integration boundaries.

Preventive Mode

Adopted from the security-and-hardening reference skill. Use this section while authoring or reviewing code that touches authentication, authorization, input validation, secrets, network exposure, or data persistence.

Three-Tier Boundary System

The boundary system replaces ad-hoc judgment with a tiered policy. Map every security-sensitive operation to one of the tiers below.

Tier 1 — Always do (no permission needed)

These are always-correct defaults; deviating from them requires explicit justification in the change description.

• Parameterize every SQL query (use bind variables / ? placeholders).
• Validate all external input at the system boundary (HTTP handler, CLI parser, MCP tool call) using a schema library (pydantic / zod / JSON Schema), not deep in business logic.
• Use list-form subprocess.run([...]) — never shell=True with concatenated user data.
• Hash passwords with a slow KDF (bcrypt / argon2 / scrypt). Never store, log, or transmit plaintext passwords.
• Set HTTPS / TLS for all network egress; reject downgrades.
• Prefer the platform's secret manager (env-injected vault token → KV lookup) over reading raw files in source control.
• Apply allow-listing for redirects, file paths, and host headers; reject by default.
• Encode output for the consuming context: HTML escape for browsers, JSON-encode for APIs, log-encode for log lines.

Tier 2 — Ask first (requires explicit human approval)

Operations in this tier are sometimes correct but always risky. Pause and request confirmation before proceeding; document the approval in the PR.

• Disabling CSRF, CORS, or auth on an endpoint (even temporarily for debugging).
• Rolling your own crypto (custom hashing, encryption, signing). Default to a vetted library.
• Logging request/response bodies that may contain secrets, PII, tokens, or credentials.
• Granting write access to production data from a non-production environment.
• Adding a new dependency that handles authentication, sessions, or crypto — verify maintenance status and security advisories first.
• Bypassing rate-limiting or input size limits for a "trusted" client.
• Storing user-supplied data in a path constructed from that data (path traversal risk).

Tier 3 — Never do (no exceptions, no overrides)

These are absolute prohibitions. Treat any code that crosses these lines as broken and refuse to merge.

• eval() / exec() / Function() on attacker-controlled or external input.
• Hardcoded production secrets, API keys, or private keys in source code or config files.
• Disabling TLS certificate verification in production code (verify=False, rejectUnauthorized: false).
• SQL string concatenation with user input ("just this once").
• Storing passwords with reversible encryption (or any non-KDF hash like MD5/SHA-1).
• Logging raw passwords, MFA codes, session tokens, or credit-card numbers.
• Sending secrets via URL query parameters (they appear in access logs and Referer headers).
• Returning stack traces or framework error pages to unauthenticated users in production.

OWASP Top 10 Prevention Checklist

Apply this checklist to every meaningful change. The deeper, item-level guidance lives in references/security-checklist.md — use that file as the authoritative source when triaging an audit finding.

1. A01 — Broken Access Control — Every endpoint enforces authentication AND authorization (role/ownership checks). Default deny; no IDOR by URL guessing; admin endpoints reject non-admin tokens with 403.
2. A02 — Cryptographic Failures — TLS for all transport; KDF for passwords; AES-GCM (or equivalent AEAD) for at-rest encryption; no MD5/SHA-1 for security purposes; no hardcoded keys.
3. A03 — Injection — Parameterized SQL; list-form subprocess; output encoding for HTML/log/template contexts; no eval / dynamic SQL / os.system on user input.
4. A04 — Insecure Design — Threat-model the new feature; document the trust boundary; rate-limit by default; design for failure (denial-of-service safety, idempotency).
5. A05 — Security Misconfiguration — Production has CSRF + CORS + secure cookies + HSTS + CSP enabled; debug and stack traces disabled; default admin accounts removed; no .env in source control.
6. A06 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components — Dependency-check / Dependabot is wired in CI (the scanner-runner mode below covers this); pin major versions; review security advisories before upgrading auth/crypto libs.
7. A07 — Identification & Authentication Failures — Slow KDF for passwords; account lockout / rate-limit on login; MFA available for high-privilege accounts; session tokens are random, server-side-revocable, and rotate on privilege change.
8. A08 — Software & Data Integrity Failures — Verify checksums / signatures of downloaded artifacts; pin CI action versions to a SHA; no auto-update of code from external sources without review.
9. A09 — Security Logging & Monitoring Failures — Log auth events (success, failure, lockout, privilege change) with structured fields; alert on anomalies; never log secrets; preserve logs across the incident-response window.
10. A10 — Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) — Allow-list outbound destinations; reject internal/loopback/metadata IPs (169.254.169.254, 10.0.0.0/8, 127.0.0.1) for user-driven fetches; resolve DNS once and pin the resolved IP for the request.

For the deeper, language-specific checks behind each item, consult references/security-checklist.md.

Arguments

$ARGUMENTS - Optional flags:

• --repo <path> (default: current directory)
• --out-dir <path> (default: <repo>/docs/security-review)
• --profile-override <profiles> (for example python,node)
• --fail-on <info|low|medium|high|critical> (default: high)
• --zap-target <url-or-spec> (required for ZAP execution)
• --zap-mode <baseline|api|full> (default: baseline)
• --change <change-id> (optional; writes OpenSpec artifact to openspec/changes/<id>/security-review-report.md)
• --openspec-root <path> (optional override when resolving OpenSpec change directory)
• --bootstrap <auto|never> (default: auto)
• --apply-bootstrap (execute install commands, otherwise print-only)
• --allow-degraded-pass (allow pass when scanners are unavailable and no threshold findings exist)
• --dry-run

Script Location

Scripts live in <agent-skills-dir>/security-review/scripts/. Each agent runtime substitutes <agent-skills-dir> with its config directory:

• Claude: .claude/skills
• Codex: .codex/skills
• Gemini: .gemini/skills

If scripts are missing, run skills/install.sh to sync them from the canonical skills/ source.

Prerequisites

• Python 3.11+
• Optional scanner runtime dependencies:
  • Java 17+ for native OWASP Dependency-Check
  • Podman Desktop (preferred) with Docker CLI compatibility enabled
  • or another Docker-compatible container runtime
• For dependency setup/repair:
  • <agent-skills-dir>/security-review/scripts/install_deps.sh
  • <agent-skills-dir>/security-review/docs/dependencies.md

Coordinator Integration (Optional)

Use docs/coordination-detection-template.md as the shared detection preamble.

• Detect transport and capability flags at skill start
• Execute hooks only when the matching CAN_* flag is true
• If coordinator is unavailable, continue with standalone behavior

Steps

0. Detect Coordinator and Run Guardrail Pre-check (Informational)

At skill start, run the coordination detection preamble and set:

• COORDINATOR_AVAILABLE
• COORDINATION_TRANSPORT (mcp|http|none)
• CAN_LOCK, CAN_QUEUE_WORK, CAN_HANDOFF, CAN_MEMORY, CAN_GUARDRAILS

If CAN_GUARDRAILS=true, run an informational guardrail pre-check before scanners:

• MCP path: check_guardrails
• HTTP path: "<skill-base-dir>/../coordination-bridge/scripts/coordination_bridge.py" try_check_guardrails(...)

Pre-check target text should summarize intended scan commands and any write actions (report generation paths, temp outputs).

Phase 1 behavior:

• Report violations with category/severity details
• Continue execution without hard-blocking

1. Detect Project Profile

python3 <agent-skills-dir>/security-review/scripts/detect_profile.py --repo <path> --pretty

2. Build Scanner Plan

python3 <agent-skills-dir>/security-review/scripts/build_scan_plan.py \
  --repo <path> \
  --zap-target <url-or-spec> \
  --zap-mode baseline \
  --fail-on high \
  --pretty

3. Check Prerequisites

<agent-skills-dir>/security-review/scripts/check_prereqs.sh --json

If requirements are missing:

# print-only by default
<agent-skills-dir>/security-review/scripts/install_deps.sh --components java,podman,dependency-check

# execute install commands
<agent-skills-dir>/security-review/scripts/install_deps.sh --apply --components java,podman,dependency-check

4. Run End-to-End Orchestrator

python3 <agent-skills-dir>/security-review/scripts/main.py \
  --repo <path> \
  --out-dir docs/security-review \
  --fail-on high \
  --zap-target <url-or-spec> \
  --zap-mode baseline \
  --change <change-id> \
  --bootstrap auto

Outputs (default under <repo>/docs/security-review/):

• aggregate.json
• gate.json
• security-review-report.json
• security-review-report.md
• optional OpenSpec artifact: openspec/changes/<change-id>/security-review-report.md

Dry-run behavior:

• --dry-run still writes deterministic files under docs/security-review/.
• --dry-run does not overwrite openspec/changes/<change-id>/security-review-report.md.

5. Interpret Gate

• PASS: no findings at/above threshold and scanner execution acceptable.
• FAIL: findings met/exceeded threshold.
• INCONCLUSIVE: scanner execution incomplete (unless degraded pass is explicitly allowed).
• For DAST-capable profiles, omitting --zap-target marks ZAP as unavailable and yields INCONCLUSIVE unless --allow-degraded-pass is set.

Manual Scanner Commands (Optional)

Dependency-Check adapter (native or container fallback):

<agent-skills-dir>/security-review/scripts/run_dependency_check.sh --repo <path> --out <dir>
python3 <agent-skills-dir>/security-review/scripts/parse_dependency_check.py --input <dir>/dependency-check-report.json --pretty

ZAP adapter (container runtime):

<agent-skills-dir>/security-review/scripts/run_zap_scan.sh --target <url-or-spec> --out <dir> --mode baseline
python3 <agent-skills-dir>/security-review/scripts/parse_zap_results.py --input <dir>/zap-report.json --pretty

Quality Checks

python3 -m pytest <agent-skills-dir>/security-review/tests -q
openspec validate add-security-review-skill --strict

Common Rationalizations

Rationalization	Why it's wrong
"Dependency-Check passed, so the change is secure"	SCA only catches known-CVE'd dependencies. It says nothing about your authn/authz logic, your input validation, or the shell injection you wrote yesterday. Run preventive mode AND scanner mode.
"I'll skip the OWASP checklist — this PR is small"	The most expensive vulnerabilities ship in small PRs (a one-line verify=False, a f"... {user_input} ..." SQL string). Small PRs are exactly when humans skip review; the checklist exists to compensate.
"We don't have a threat model, so I can't tell what tier this falls into"	When in doubt, treat the operation as Tier 2 (ask first). Tier-3 prohibitions (eval, hardcoded secrets, TLS bypass) are absolute and don't require a threat model to recognize.
"ZAP scan target isn't deployed yet — I'll skip the scan"	Run preventive mode anyway. ZAP-INCONCLUSIVE is fine for a PR that doesn't add new endpoints; it is not fine when the PR is the new endpoint. Wire ZAP into staging before merge.
"The scanner finding is a false positive — I'll suppress it without a note"	Suppressing without a justification (issue link, threat-model reference, compensating-control description) is how real findings get buried. Always document the suppression in the report.

Red Flags

• A PR that touches authentication, sessions, or crypto without explicit reference to the OWASP A02/A07 checklist items in the description.
• Any new subprocess call with shell=True or any new SQL string that includes f"..." / + / % formatting with non-literal data — Tier 3 prohibition.
• verify=False, rejectUnauthorized: false, or InsecureRequestWarning suppression appearing anywhere outside a clearly-labelled local-test fixture — Tier 3 prohibition.
• A new dependency in package.json / pyproject.toml / Cargo.toml that handles auth, crypto, or sessions, without a note in the PR explaining why and confirming it has recent commits and no open critical advisories.
• gate.json reports INCONCLUSIVE and --allow-degraded-pass was applied without a justification in the PR description.
• Logging that emits request.body, headers["Authorization"], request.cookies, or password-bearing form fields — Tier 2 violation that often slips through review.
• A .env file, private key, or kubeconfig appearing in git status for the PR.

Verification

1. Confirm preventive mode was applied: every Tier 3 prohibition listed above has been searched (e.g., rg "shell=True|verify=False|eval\(|exec\(") and zero violations remain in the PR diff.
2. Confirm the OWASP Top 10 checklist was walked: cite at least one item the PR exercises (e.g., "A03 Injection: all new SQL uses bound parameters at handlers/users.py:42") in the PR description.
3. Confirm the scanner-runner mode produced gate.json with PASS (or INCONCLUSIVE with --allow-degraded-pass AND a written justification).
4. Confirm references/security-checklist.md was consulted for the relevant item-level checks (cite the section heading) when the change touches an OWASP category.
5. Confirm any Tier 2 operation in the diff has explicit human approval recorded in the PR (review comment or commit trailer).