菜单
Analyzes business logic for security flaws such as workflow bypasses, race conditions, and abuse cases. Use when reviewing application logic for exploitable behavior.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Reviews API and infrastructure security configuration, including endpoints, headers, transport, and deployment settings. Use when auditing API or infrastructure hardening.
Conducts a comprehensive authentication security review covering login, sessions, tokens, and credential handling. Use when auditing authentication for vulnerabilities.
Analyzes authorization and access-control logic across routes and resources for privilege and enforcement flaws. Use when auditing authorization, RBAC, or access control.
Detects duplicated and near-duplicate code across the codebase and suggests consolidation. Use when reviewing for copy-paste code, repeated logic, or DRY violations.
Analyzes code complexity and adherence to quality standards, flagging overly complex functions and metric outliers. Use when auditing maintainability, cyclomatic complexity, or coding-standard compliance.
Aggregates findings from the other security audits into one prioritized security report. Use after running individual security reviews to produce a consolidated report.
| name | business-logic-vulnerabilities |
| description | Analyzes business logic for security flaws such as workflow bypasses, race conditions, and abuse cases. Use when reviewing application logic for exploitable behavior. |
| license | CC0-1.0 |
| metadata | {"category":"security"} |
| allowed-tools | Read Grep Glob Write |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
| argument-hint | [path or scope] |
Target: $ARGUMENTS
If no target path is given above, review the entire codebase.
Analyze business logic for security flaws:
Check for:
Race conditions
Price manipulation
Workflow bypass
Time-based vulnerabilities
Integer overflow/underflow
In the audit report, document a business logic threat model.
A structured finding report with the following for each issue:
Title, Severity (Critical/High/Medium/Low), CWE (if applicable), Evidence (file, function, line ranges), and a short Why it matters.
Exploitability notes and, where safe, a minimal PoC or reproduction steps (no real secrets).
Remediation: precise code-level fix or config change (snippets welcome), plus defense-in-depth guidance.
A summary risk score (0–10) and top 3–5 prioritized fixes that reduce risk fastest.
A checklist diff: which items from the “Check for” list are Pass/Fail/Not Applicable.
Be concrete and cite exact code locations and identifiers.
Prefer minimal, drop-in fix snippets over prose.
Do not invent files or functions that aren’t present; if context is missing, mark as Unable to verify and say what code would prove it.
Write this into a markdown file and place it in the audits/ folder.
