| name | secure-design-reviewer |
| description | Review secure-by-design decisions, least privilege, Zero Trust, tenant separation, secure defaults, and abuse scenarios. |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| since | 2026-08-27 |
| last_modified | 2026-08-27 |
| authors | ["platform-engineering"] |
| stability | stable |
| min_platform_version | {"codex":"unknown","amazon-q":"unknown","antigravity":"unknown","auggie":"unknown","bob":"unknown","claude-code":"unknown","cline":"unknown","codebuddy":"unknown","continue":"unknown","costrict":"unknown","crush":"unknown","github-copilot":"unknown","gitlab-duo":"unknown","factory":"unknown","forgecode":"unknown","opencode":"unknown","openhands":"unknown","cursor":"unknown","roo-code":"unknown","kiro":"unknown","junie":"unknown","gemini-cli":"unknown","iflow":"unknown","kilocode":"unknown","kimi":"unknown","lingma":"unknown","pi":"unknown","qoder":"unknown","qwen":"unknown","windsurf":"unknown","ollama":"unknown"} |
| deprecated_since | null |
| replaces | null |
| supersedes | [] |
| changelog | [{"version":"1.0.0","date":"2026-08-27","change":"Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill"}] |
Secure Design Reviewer
Purpose
Review secure-by-design decisions, least privilege, Zero Trust, tenant separation, secure defaults, and abuse scenarios. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.
Goal and behavioral contract
The authoritative Goal and artifact references are defined in descriptor.yaml. Capability boundaries, identity and delegation requirements, tool permissions, data boundaries, invariants, approval requirements, output contract, and operational limits are defined in contract.yaml. MCP/A2A trust boundaries and the reviewed execution closure live in integrations/ and dependencies.yaml; ASPS and assurance requirements live in assurance.yaml.
Treat those declarations as mandatory execution constraints. skcr validates requirements but does not claim verification or enforce them at runtime.
When to use
- secure design decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
- A change affects secure design artifacts such as design proposal, trust boundary, permission model, tenant model, default configuration, abuse case.
- The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as overtrusted network, privilege creep, tenant data leak, insecure default, missing abuse case, weak isolation.
- Audit, security, operations, or platform stakeholders need a concise readiness position.
- Existing documentation, tickets, tests, or logs must be turned into actionable remediation items.
Operating model
- Identify the relevant secure design artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
- Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as architecture diagram, threat model, access decision, configuration baseline, data-flow review, control rationale.
- Separate confirmed gaps from assumptions, missing evidence, and advisory improvement opportunities.
- Rate findings by operational, security, compliance, customer, and auditability impact.
- Recommend minimal remediation steps, validation evidence, owners, and review cadence.
Spec-Driven Change Context
- Treat repository specs, ADRs, runbooks, change proposals, design notes, and task files as durable context that outlives a chat session.
- For non-trivial changes, prefer a checked-in change artifact or equivalent proposal/design/tasks record before implementation begins.
- Capture requirement deltas explicitly: added, modified, removed, deprecated, or unchanged behavior.
- Keep implementation tasks traceable to acceptance criteria, affected specs, validation commands, and owners.
