miadi-mightyeagle-issue-263

name	miadi-mightyeagle-issue-263
description	Use this skill for jgwill/Miadi#263 security-remediation orchestration work: resume from the live issue workspace, revise the issue-263-derived rispecs, and run explicit implementer/review/promotion handoffs without creating a new plugin.
version	0.1.0

Miadi Mightyeagle Issue 263

This skill is for the main-session orchestrator when working on jgwill/Miadi#263 or when revising the issue-263-derived first-wave security-remediation rispecs.

It does not create a new plugin. First wave is:

1. reusable rispecs,
2. an issue-aware operational skill,
3. issue-local artefacts that future agents can resume from.

When this skill applies

Use this skill when:

• the active work is about jgwill/Miadi#263,
• the goal is to continue or refine security-remediation orchestration,
• the session must turn branch-local evidence into reusable kit knowledge,
• review and revision must be delegated instead of implied,
• a future agent needs a clean starting point with exact paths and launch rules.

Do not use this skill for general application-security advice or for unrelated issues without first checking whether the same orchestration pattern really applies.

This skill is therefore issue-aware, not fully issue-agnostic. Reusable knowledge lives in the rispecs; the skill keeps the current-instance issue-263 paths and handoffs operational.

Invocation shape

Invoke with an explicit prompt payload:

Use the skill `miadi-mightyeagle-issue-263`.

Inputs:
- issue_id: jgwill/Miadi#263
- issue_workspace: /usr/local/src/263-miadi-vulnerabilities-260429
- issue_orchestration_dir: /usr/local/src/263-miadi-vulnerabilities-260429/.mia/branches/fix/security-vulnerabilities-263
- issue_review_source: /usr/local/src/263-miadi-vulnerabilities-260429/.mia/review-security-vulnerability-260429.md
- execution_log: /usr/local/src/263-miadi-vulnerabilities-260429/.mia/branches/fix/security-vulnerabilities-263/EXECUTION_LOG.md
- rispec_root: /workspace/repos/jgwill/miadi-orchestration-kit/rispecs/security-remediation-orchestration
- latest_findings: <paths or "none">
- current_goal: <revise rispecs | prepare implementer handoff | run security review handoff | run RISE revision loop>
- lanes_in_scope: <comma-separated lanes>

First instruction:

Read the required sources in order, state what is reusable versus issue-bound, then execute only the requested lane handoffs. Leave exit artefacts with changed files, test evidence, exploit-regression evidence, blockers, defer/reject rationale, and the next safe relaunch command.

Required reading order

1. /usr/local/src/263-miadi-vulnerabilities-260429/.mia/review-security-vulnerability-260429.md
2. /usr/local/src/263-miadi-vulnerabilities-260429/.mia/branches/fix/security-vulnerabilities-263/ORCHESTRATION_PLAN.md
3. /usr/local/src/263-miadi-vulnerabilities-260429/.mia/branches/fix/security-vulnerabilities-263/QUICKSTART.md
4. /usr/local/src/263-miadi-vulnerabilities-260429/.mia/branches/fix/security-vulnerabilities-263/EXECUTION_LOG.md
5. latest review findings still open for revision
6. /usr/local/src/263-miadi-vulnerabilities-260429/llms/llms-rise-framework.txt
7. /workspace/repos/jgwill/miadi-orchestration-kit/rispecs/security-remediation-orchestration/README.md
8. /workspace/repos/jgwill/miadi-orchestration-kit/rispecs/security-remediation-orchestration/01-reverse-engineer.md
9. /workspace/repos/jgwill/miadi-orchestration-kit/rispecs/security-remediation-orchestration/02-intent.md
10. /workspace/repos/jgwill/miadi-orchestration-kit/rispecs/security-remediation-orchestration/03-specify.md
11. /workspace/repos/jgwill/miadi-orchestration-kit/rispecs/security-remediation-orchestration/04-export.md
12. /workspace/repos/jgwill/miadi-orchestration-kit/rispecs/security-remediation-orchestration/05-issue-263-source-ledger.md

Path ledger

Path	Role
/usr/local/src/263-miadi-vulnerabilities-260429	Live issue workspace
/usr/local/src/263-miadi-vulnerabilities-260429/.mia/branches/fix/security-vulnerabilities-263	Issue-local orchestration artefacts
/usr/local/src/263-miadi-vulnerabilities-260429/.mia/review-security-vulnerability-260429.md	Security review source
/usr/local/src/263-miadi-vulnerabilities-260429/.mia/branches/fix/security-vulnerabilities-263/EXECUTION_LOG.md	Live resume and blocker state
/workspace/repos/jgwill/miadi-orchestration-kit	Reusable orchestration repo
/workspace/repos/jgwill/miadi-orchestration-kit/rispecs/security-remediation-orchestration	Reusable issue-263-derived rispecs
/src/Miadi	Canonical broader Miadi reference root
/workspace/repos/miadisabelle/mia-awesome-copilot	Source plugin patterns

Wave model

Wave 0: Read and classify

• read the review and issue artefacts,
• classify surfaces into clusters,
• identify the foundational move,
• state what is reusable and what remains issue evidence.

Wave 1: Reverse-engineer into reusable patterns

• use issue evidence to extract orchestration rules,
• preserve exact paths and provenance,
• do not flatten the work into generic security prose.

Wave 2: Specify the durable contract

• define lanes,
• define review gates,
• define required inputs, outputs, and handoff triggers,
• define blocked-state handling.

Wave 3: Export launch, resume, and audit patterns

• write explicit commands,
• define skill invocation parameters,
• define report shape,
• define handoff instructions,
• keep issue linkage intact.

Wave 4: Adversarial review and promotion boundary check

• run dissenting review,
• revise from findings,
• decide what stays issue-local and what remains reusable.

Subagent guidance

Prefer the already-loaded agents instead of inventing issue-specific copies:

• stckin-orchestration-kit:miadi-deep-search-synthesizer for evidence synthesis and replayable launch patterns
• context-engineering:context-architect for file/surface mapping and dependency boundaries
• software-engineering-team:se-security-reviewer for exploitability and security-quality review
• miadi-adversarial-review-kit:rise-revision-critic for RISE-structured dissent review
• miadi-promotion-context-kit:miadi-promotion-architect for deciding what belongs in reusable rispec/skill form

If implementation changes are in scope, keep implementer and reviewer lanes separate.

Lane-specific handoff expectations

Coordinator -> implementer

Provide:

• exact files or rispec sections in scope,
• acceptance criteria,
• required tests or exploit-regression expectations,
• latest open findings to preserve.

Implementer -> security review

Provide:

• exact files changed,
• commands run,
• test evidence,
• exploit-regression evidence,
• unresolved risk list,
• sanitization note for any secrets, headers, or payload excerpts.

Implementer or synthesis -> RISE review

Provide:

• revised rispec or skill files,
• source-ledger references for promoted claims,
• note of any issue-specific examples retained on purpose.

Revision -> promotion-boundary review

Provide:

• final changed reusable assets,
• explanation of what stayed issue-local,
• explanation of why no new plugin was created.

Security review scope

Security review is not limited to auth and HTTP checks. Require review for:

• prompt injection paths,
• tool abuse or over-broad tool grants,
• memory poisoning or untrusted context ingestion,
• model or data leakage through prompts, logs, or artefacts,
• secret/header/payload exposure,
• authn/authz regressions,
• shell, path traversal, SSRF, webhook, and callback surfaces.

Review loop

Minimum required loop:

1. draft or implementer handoff,
2. security review,
3. RISE/dissent review for reusable assets,
4. revise,
5. promotion-boundary check if reusable scope changed,
6. update export/handoff guidance if review changed the launch contract.

Do not stop at review production alone. Either revise the artefacts or record an explicit defer/reject decision with rationale.

Exit artefacts

Every completed run using this skill should leave:

• exact paths read,
• exact files changed,
• lane owner and subagents used,
• test evidence and exploit-regression results,
• blocker/defer/reject carriage with rationale,
• sanitization note for secrets, headers, payloads, and customer data,
• next safe relaunch command.

Current-instance launch example

copilot \
  --plugin-dir /workspace/repos/jgwill/miadi-orchestration-kit/copilot/stckin-orchestration-kit \
  --plugin-dir /workspace/repos/jgwill/miadi-orchestration-kit/copilot/miadi-promotion-context-kit \
  --plugin-dir /workspace/repos/jgwill/miadi-orchestration-kit/copilot/miadi-adversarial-review-kit \
  --plugin-dir /workspace/repos/miadisabelle/mia-awesome-copilot/plugins/software-engineering-team \
  --plugin-dir /workspace/repos/miadisabelle/mia-awesome-copilot/plugins/context-engineering \
  --add-dir /workspace/repos/jgwill/miadi-orchestration-kit \
  --add-dir /usr/local/src/263-miadi-vulnerabilities-260429 \
  --add-dir /usr/local/src/263-miadi-vulnerabilities-260429/.mia/branches/fix/security-vulnerabilities-263 \
  --add-dir /src/Miadi \
  --add-dir /workspace/repos/miadisabelle/mia-awesome-copilot

Treat this as an issue-263 example from the current drafting environment, not a universal requirement for every future security issue.

Hard rules

• Always cite jgwill/Miadi#263.
• Always preserve exact source paths.
• Always keep reusable rules separate from issue-specific evidence.
• Do not create a new plugin for a single issue.
• Do not duplicate existing plugin agents into issue-local markdown.
• Do not treat the issue branch folder itself as the reusable artefact.
• Do not bury relaunch commands in long narrative prose.

Expected outputs

• updated rispecs under rispecs/security-remediation-orchestration/
• compact issue-local handoff or execution-log updates
• delegated review findings
• revised reusable assets
• issue linkage carried where commits or artefacts are produced

Anti-patterns

• converting the rispec into only a vulnerability inventory
• converting the skill into only a command cheat sheet
• copying the entire issue artefact tree into the kit repo
• making generic claims without path-based provenance
• letting the same lane both implement and approve the work