security-review

name	security-review
description	Runs a guided, end-to-end security review of a Power Pages site and consolidates every finding into one HTML report covering source code and dependencies, the live site, browser headers, firewall, authentication, and role-based permissions. Use when the user wants a full security review, a release-readiness check before publishing, a code-and-config check during development, live site monitoring, or asks open-ended questions like "review my site security", "is my site safe to ship", "do a security check", "monitor my site" — even if they do not name the individual checks.
user-invocable	true
argument-hint	[optional natural-language hint about the goal]
allowed-tools	Read, Write, Bash, Glob, Grep, AskUserQuestion, TaskCreate, TaskUpdate, TaskList, Skill, Agent
model	opus

Plugin check: Run node "${PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/check-version.js" — if it outputs a message, show it to the user before proceeding.

Review Security

Guide the user through a full security review of their Power Pages site. Runs the matching focused skills and assembles every finding into a single HTML report.

The skill never asks the user technical questions. The conversation stays in plain language.

Initial request: $ARGUMENTS

Workflow

The skill has six phases. Phases 2–5 each map to one conversation beat with the user; phases 1 and 6 are silent setup and cleanup. See references/flow.md for the rationale behind each beat.

Phase	What happens	User-facing beat
1 — Prerequisites	Locate project, set up working folders	(silent setup)
2 — Scope	Capture goal — one question, three answers, plain language	Ask the goal
3 — Skills	Run the matching skills, surface progress	Scan in progress
4 — Report	Build the consolidated report — totals + per-section findings	Results summary + Findings
5 — Present	Present results, offer remediation follow-ups	Next steps and guidance
6 — Cleanup	Remove temporary files	(silent cleanup)

Task Tracking

Create tasks in three groups. Mark each in_progress when starting, completed when done.

Group 1 — create at the start of prerequisites:

Task subject	activeForm
Check prerequisites	Checking prerequisites

Only this one task. Do not create any other tasks until prerequisites complete.

Group 2 — create after prerequisites complete:

Task subject	activeForm
Capture goal	Capturing goal

Group 3 — create after the goal is captured:

Task subject	activeForm
Run skills	Running checks
Build the report	Building the report
Present findings	Presenting findings
Clean up	Cleaning up

---

1. Prerequisites

1.1 Locate the project

Use Glob to find **/powerpages.config.json. If none is found, tell the user the site needs to be created first with /create-site, then stop.

For the monitor and release goals (any goal that delegates to scan-site or manage-firewall), also confirm that .powerpages-site/website.yml exists. If it does not, the site has not been deployed yet — tell the user (in plain language) the site needs to be deployed once before a live security review can run, recommend /deploy-site, then stop. Do not try to identify the site by name or URL — different sites can share the same name.

For the code-config goal, the deploy check is not required: source code, dependencies, authentication, web roles, and table permissions are read from local files alone.

1.2 Prepare a temporary working folder

Create a fresh working directory: <SYSTEM_TEMP>/security-review/. The folder holds JSON data files emitted by each skill in review mode. The folder is removed in the cleanup step.

If the folder already exists from a previous interrupted run, delete its contents (not the folder itself) before continuing.

1.3 Determine the docs output path

The final HTML always lives at <PROJECT_ROOT>/docs/security-review-<YYYY-MM-DD-HHMMSS>.html using the local timestamp at the start of the run (e.g. security-review-2026-05-14-053805.html). Always include the timestamp — do not use a bare security-review.html name. This keeps each run's report distinct.

---

2. Capture goal

2.1 Ask the goal

🚦 Gate (plan · security-review:2.1.goal): Capture the review goal — choice branches into one of three sub-skill sets (code-config / release / monitor).

Trigger: Phase 2.1 entry, unless $ARGUMENTS already answers it. Why we ask: Auto-picking release runs ALL sub-skills (slow; possibly hits scan/firewall endpoints unnecessarily); auto-picking the wrong goal mis-scopes the review. Cancel leaves: Nothing — no sub-skills invoked yet.

Ask the user with a single AskUserQuestion call. If the user's initial request already answers it, skip and continue.

Question — What to review?

Label	Description
Code & config	Check source code, dependencies, authentication, web roles, and table permissions. Works on local files only.
Release readiness	Full review before publishing — checks everything. (Recommended)
Deployed site	Check the live site for issues. Requires deployment.

Goal mapping (internal):

Label	Goal id	Skills
Code & config	code-config	scan-code, audit-permissions, setup-auth (read-only)
Release readiness	release	scan-code, scan-site, manage-headers, manage-firewall, audit-permissions, setup-auth (read-only)
Deployed site	monitor	scan-site

2.2 Capture the chosen skill set

Build a selectedSkills list based on the answer. Always include the read-only check of setup-auth for the code-config and release goals (it consists of reading existing YAML, not running the skill itself — see § 3.2 below). This is the Access & Data Security Validation component.

---

3. Run the matching skills

Spawn each selected skill as a background subagent via the Agent tool. Each subagent invokes its skill with the argument --review <SYSTEM_TEMP>/security-review/. Each skill handles its own authentication, error reporting, and progress.

3.1 Skill invocation via subagents

Skills run as parallel subagents using the Agent tool.

Default — launch every Agent-eligible skill in one parallel batch. Spawn all selected subagents in a single message with multiple Agent tool calls so they start concurrently. Each subagent runs with run_in_background: true. The Agent-eligible set is scan-code, scan-site, manage-headers, manage-firewall — these all support --review mode. scan-site (server-side scan, several minutes) and scan-code (local static analysis + dependency scan, up to minutes on large projects) are the slowest; the others typically finish within seconds.

Fallback — staggered launch. If the harness rejects a parallel-batch call for any reason, launch scan-code and scan-site first (the long-running ones) and then the remaining skills in a follow-up message. This is a tool-affordance fallback, not the preferred path.

Inline checks (run while subagents work). audit-permissions and setup-auth do not support --review and MUST NOT be launched via Agent — handle them inline as described in § 3.2.

Wait for all subagents to complete before proceeding to the report-building step.

3.1.1 Subagent prompt pattern

Each subagent receives a self-contained prompt that includes:

1. The skill to invoke and the --review argument with the temp directory path
2. The project root path so the skill can locate site files
3. Any scope/depth parameters captured in the scope capture step

Example subagent call:

Agent({
  description: "Run scan-site",
  prompt: "Invoke the skill `scan-site` with argument `--review <SYSTEM_TEMP>/security-review/`. The Power Pages project root is <PROJECT_ROOT>. <any additional scope parameters>. Write the **transform script stdout verbatim** to <SYSTEM_TEMP>/security-review/scan-site.json. Do NOT synthesize, augment, or re-classify the findings. If the skill fails, write { \"status\": \"skipped\", \"reason\": \"<plain-language reason>\" } instead.",
  run_in_background: true
})

Verbatim rule: the subagent's output JSON must contain only the findings emitted by the skill's transform script. The orchestrator must not append findings, rewrite titles, add severity, or otherwise editorialize.

3.1.2 Expected output

After all subagents complete, expect JSON files at <SYSTEM_TEMP>/security-review/<skill-name>.json. Each file has the shape { status, findings, details? } produced by the skill's transform script:

<SYSTEM_TEMP>/security-review/
├── scan-code.json           (when invoked)
├── scan-site.json
├── manage-headers.json
├── manage-firewall.json
└── audit-permissions.json   (when invoked)

If a skill's subagent fails or is skipped, write a placeholder file with shape { "status": "skipped", "reason": "<plain-language reason>" }. The report-building step renders this as a single non-severity finding for that section (no severity field, to stay consistent with § 3.1.3).

3.1.3 Severity policy

Only findings that come from a tool that genuinely outputs severity may carry a severity field:

Section	Source	Severity allowed?
scan-code	opengrep, trivy	Yes
scan-site	deep-scan (ZAP)	Yes
manage-headers	transform-headers.js (inventory)	No
manage-firewall	transform-firewall.js (inventory)	No
audit-permissions	Web roles & table permissions audit	No
setup-auth	Site settings & auth-related source code audit	No

For inventory sections, do not add severity to findings — not even info. The subagent and orchestrator must write the transform output verbatim without inserting opinionated severity-bearing findings. The tag field is also off-limits as a severity workaround: it is reserved for short mechanical identifiers from tools (e.g. ZAP rule ids, CWE codes) and MUST NOT carry severity-equivalent strings (critical, warning, info), since the report template renders it as a visible chip next to the title.

3.1.4 Annotations policy (plain-language text)

The transform scripts for manage-firewall and manage-headers produce only structured raw data — they do not hardcode plain-language descriptions. The subagent must generate an annotations JSON file and pass it to the transform via --annotations. The annotations supply:

• Plain-language description per rule / per header
• Optional suggested fix when a genuine issue is present

See each skill's SKILL.md § 5.1 for the annotation file shape. The agent's job is to write accurate, terse descriptions based on the raw data — not to invent severities or fabricate issues.

3.2 Skills without --review mode

audit-permissions and setup-auth do not support --review. Handle them inline (not as background subagents):

• audit-permissions — invoke via the Skill tool (not Agent). The skill audits both web roles and table permissions — capture both in its output. After it completes, read its output and write <SYSTEM_TEMP>/security-review/audit-permissions.json in the unified { status, findings, details? } shape (mapping each audit finding into the common finding fields: id, title, location, details, fix).
• setup-auth — do not invoke as a skill. Instead, read .powerpages-site/site-settings/ YAML files directly and check for:
  • identity provider configured? (Authentication/OpenIdConnect/*/Authority)
  • profile redirect disabled? (Authentication/Registration/ProfileRedirectEnabled = false)
  • cookie SameSite setting? (HTTP/SameSite/Default)

Write the resulting findings to <SYSTEM_TEMP>/security-review/setup-auth.json in the same format.

Field policy for both sections — these are inventory sections, not tool-output severities (see § 3.1.3):

• Do NOT include a severity field on any finding.
• Do NOT include a tag field. The tag field is reserved for short mechanical identifiers from tools (HTTP/X-Frame-Options, ZAP rule id 10055, CWE codes). It MUST NOT carry severity-equivalent strings (critical, warning, info) — the report template renders tag as a visible chip next to the title, so stashing LLM-judged severity there would visually re-introduce the severity bucketing this section explicitly forbids.

3.3 Status updates

Tell the user that all checks are running in parallel. As each subagent completes, give a short progress line (e.g., "Code check finished — 2 important issues, 4 smaller ones."). Avoid technical jargon. Do not narrate skill internal steps. Once all subagents have finished, confirm that all checks are complete before moving to the report-building step.

---

4. Build the consolidated report

4.1 Consolidate

Write up to four plain-language next-step recommendations as a JSON string array to <SYSTEM_TEMP>/security-review/next-steps.json. Compose a 2–4 sentence plain-language summary of the overall state.

node "${PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/build-review-data.js" \
  --reportName "Security Review" \
  --inputDir "<SYSTEM_TEMP>/security-review/" \
  --siteName "<SITE_NAME>" \
  --goalLabel "<GOAL_LABEL>" \
  --scopeLabel "<SCOPE_LABEL>" \
  --summary "<SUMMARY_TEXT>" \
  --nextStepsFile "<SYSTEM_TEMP>/security-review/next-steps.json" \
  --output "<SYSTEM_TEMP>/security-review/security-review-data.json"

4.2 Render the master HTML

node "${PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/render-review.js" \
  --output "<DOCS_PATH>" \
  --data "<SYSTEM_TEMP>/security-review/security-review-data.json"

---

5. Present and follow-ups

5.1 Open in browser

Open <DOCS_PATH> in the user's default browser.

5.2 Record skill usage

Reference: ${PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/skill-tracking-reference.md

Use --skillName "SecurityReview".

5.3 In-chat summary

🚦 Gate (plan · security-review:5.3.next-action): Post-report next-action prompt — "Walk me through the fixes / Re-run the review / Done for now". Drives whether remediation skills get invoked.

Trigger: Phase 5.1 wrote the HTML report. Why we ask: Auto-invoking remediation skills (/manage-headers, /manage-firewall, /audit-permissions) without the user reading the report; auto-re-running the review wastes time on a still-fresh result. Cancel leaves: Nothing — the HTML report at docs/security-review-<ts>.html is the final artifact regardless.

Show a short plain-language summary in the chat: counts of critical / warning / info findings, where the report lives. Then offer the next action with AskUserQuestion:

Question	Options
What would you like to do next?	Walk me through the fixes; Re-run the review; Done for now

If the user picks "walk me through", group critical findings by section and offer the matching focused skill for each (/manage-headers, /manage-firewall, /audit-permissions, etc.).

If the user picks "re-run", invoke this skill again with the same goal and scope.

---

6. Clean up

Delete the entire <SYSTEM_TEMP>/security-review/ folder. The final HTML, located in docs/, must remain. Confirm to the user that temporary files have been removed.

If the cleanup fails (file lock, permission), warn the user and continue — the report is already written and the temp folder can be removed manually later.

---

Constraints

• Plain language with users — never lead with technical terms.
• Parallel subagent delegation — every selected skill runs as a parallel subagent via the Agent tool, launched in a single message. Perform the inline read-only setup-auth check while subagents work. Use the staggered launch (§ 3.1 fallback) only if the harness rejects the parallel-batch call.
• Single consolidated HTML — never produce per-skill HTML reports during this run. Skills run in --review mode.
• Same look and feel — rendering goes through the shared template at ${PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/lib/templates/security-review-report.html via scripts/render-review.js. Do not author per-skill HTML or duplicate the template; the generated report must match the existing audit-permissions report visually.
• Cleanup is mandatory — the cleanup step is not optional. Failing to clean up is treated as a non-fatal warning, but the skill always tries.
• Never run destructive sub-actions automatically — skills that propose changes (e.g., editing site settings, deleting WAF rules) must operate in read-only --review mode during this orchestration. Apply changes only via the explicit "walk me through fixes" follow-up, after the user picks an action.

References

• references/flow.md — rationale and example phrasing for the conversation beats in phases 2–5