| name | security-fix |
| description | Orchestrates test-driven fixes for Mattermost security tickets (Jira/Atlassian) with a Staff Security Engineer mindset: failing secure-behavior tests first, then implementation, then security review and edge-case loops, then opening a non-draft PR that follows `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md` when present, with a vague public description (no exploit detail). Use when the user invokes /security-fix:security-fix with a mattermost.atlassian.net browse URL, MM-* security work, backend permission or authorization bugs, or asks for this security TDD workflow. |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
Security fix (TDD, orchestrated)
Role of the invoking agent
The main agent is only an orchestrator. It must not write application code, tests, or fixes itself. It delegates every substantive step to separate sub agents (one focused task per sub agent). It tracks phases, passes artifacts (ticket summary, file paths, test names, failures), and decides when to loop.
Invocation
The user provides a Jira ticket URL, for example:
/security-fix:security-fix https://mattermost.atlassian.net/browse/MM-68140
Parse the issue key from the path (MM-68140). Fetch ticket details via Atlassian MCP (or the project's configured Jira integration) so sub agents get title, description, acceptance criteria, suggested remediation, and severity.
Typical scope: server-side issues (API handlers, stores, permission checks, role/team/channel scoping).
Sub agent model
Delegate to sub agents using the same model as the parent (inherit model). Do not switch the parent to a different model for delegation unless the user explicitly asks.
Phase 1 — Reproduction test only (Sub agent A: "failing secure behavior")
Single responsibility: Add only the test(s) that encode the expected secure behavior described in the ticket. Nothing else—no production code changes in this phase.
Mindset: Staff Security Engineer writing a regression contract. The test expresses what must be true for the system to be secure (deny when it should deny, omit when it should omit, etc.).
Success criterion: The new test(s) fail for the right reason (current vulnerable behavior), not compilation errors or flaky setup. If tests are green, the test does not yet reflect the bug—revise until red.
Deliverables back to orchestrator: list of new/changed test files, how to run them, exact failure messages.
Phase 2 — Fix (Sub agent B: "implement to green")
Single responsibility: Analyze the ticket (and codebase) and implement a fix using the suggested remediation from Jira or a better approach if clearly safer or simpler without widening scope.
Constraint: The change must satisfy all tests added in Phase 1. Run the same tests; they must pass.
No new tests in this phase unless strictly required to compile or wire the fix (minimal).
Deliverables: summary of code paths touched, rationale if diverging from ticket remediation, confirmation Phase 1 tests pass.
Phase 3 — Security review and edge cases (Sub agent C: "explore and harden")
Single responsibility: Treat Phase 2 as a candidate fix. Explore adjacent and upstream/downstream code paths (same handler patterns, similar endpoints, shared helpers, store methods) for edge cases the ticket did not spell out (e.g. other roles, system admins, guests, DM vs channel, deleted/archived resources, race-ish double calls).
If gaps are found:
- Add new tests that encode secure behavior for those edge cases, with the expectation they fail against the current fix if the fix is incomplete.
- Report back to the orchestrator: failing tests + analysis.
Orchestrator action: If Sub agent C added failing tests, spawn Phase 2 again (a new Sub agent B run—or same persona—implementing until all tests from Phase 1 and Phase 3 pass). Then optionally run Phase 3 once more until no new material gaps are found or the user stops the loop.
Sub agent C does not replace Phase 1's narrow reproduction; it extends coverage for defense in depth.
Orchestrator checklist
- Resolve ticket URL → issue key → fetch Jira content.
- Spawn Phase 1 sub agent; wait for failing secure-behavior tests only.
- Spawn Phase 2 sub agent; wait for green on Phase 1 tests.
- Spawn Phase 3 sub agent; collect edge-case test additions and failures.
- If Phase 3 added failing tests → return to Phase 2; then re-run Phase 3 as needed.
- Summarize for the user: ticket, test files, production changes, residual risks, suggested internal commit message notes if helpful (without the main agent having authored the code).
- Open a pull request (see below)—delegate to a sub agent if the repo uses scripted PR flows; the orchestrator ensures PR policy is followed.
Pull request (after phases complete)
Once tests pass and the orchestrator has summarized work, open a PR ready for review (not a draft), unless the user explicitly asks otherwise.
Repository PR template: Before writing the PR body, check whether .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md exists at the root of the repo where the change lives. If it exists, use that file as the structure: same sections and headings (e.g. Summary, Ticket Link, Screenshots, Release Note), fill placeholders, and remove instructional HTML comments so the submitted description is clean. If the file is missing, use a sensible minimal structure (title + short summary + ticket link) that still follows the public description policy below.
When a template includes release notes or admin-facing text (e.g. release-note blocks), apply the same vagueness as the Summary—do not describe the vulnerability in detail for end readers of release notes.
Public description policy (open source): Mattermost code is public. PR titles and bodies must not educate malicious readers about how to exploit the issue. Omit severity labels, exploit recipes, and precise vulnerable behavior from the GitHub/GitLab description. Keep that detail in Jira and private channels.
| Avoid (too specific) | Prefer (vague but accurate) |
|---|
Fix medium vulnerability where someone can read any message through GET /api/v4/xyz | Fix access issue with GET /api/v4/xyz |
| Prevent IDOR allowing arbitrary file download | Tighten authorization on file attachment endpoint |
| Patch SQL injection in search | Harden search query handling |
Guidelines:
- Describe what area changed (endpoint, feature, permission check) without explaining how it was wrong before.
- Linking the Jira ticket in the PR is fine for maintainers; the ticket holds full context.
- Commit messages on the branch should follow the same discipline when they will appear on the public default branch.
- For template sections that do not apply (e.g. Screenshots for a backend-only fix), follow what the template says—often a short "N/A" or "No UI changes" line rather than omitting the section, if the template expects every heading present.
Anti-patterns (orchestrator)
- Implementing or editing app code or tests directly.
- Combining "write test and fix" in one sub agent for the initial fix (breaks TDD discipline for this workflow).
- Skipping Phase 3 for "small" fixes—scope review to the ticket, but still run the security pass.
- Public PR text that spells out exploitability, severity, or step-by-step abuse (use Jira for that).
- Opening security-fix PRs as draft by default when the intent is to ship review-ready work (use non-draft unless the user wants draft).
- Ignoring
.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md when that file exists in the target repo (structure PR content to match it).
