security-hardening — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited security-hardening (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Security vulnerabilities are almost always cheaper to prevent than to remediate. This skill embeds security review as a required gate in the development workflow — not a separate audit that happens later (and often never).
Verify: You can name at least one realistic attack scenario for this code.
| OWASP Item | Check |
|---|---|
| A01 Broken Access Control | Authorization checked at every endpoint? Principle of least privilege applied? |
| A02 Cryptographic Failures | No plaintext PII/secrets? Using modern algorithms (AES-256, SHA-256+)? TLS everywhere? |
| A03 Injection | All user input parameterized/sanitized? No raw SQL/shell construction? |
| A04 Insecure Design | Threat model done? Secure defaults? Fail closed (not open)? |
| A05 Security Misconfiguration | No default credentials? Unnecessary features disabled? Error messages don't leak internals? |
| A06 Vulnerable Components | Dependencies up to date? Known CVEs checked? |
| A07 Auth Failures | Brute-force protection? Session management correct? MFA available? |
| A08 Software Integrity | Dependencies verified? Supply chain integrity? |
| A09 Logging Failures | Security events logged? No secrets in logs? Logs protected from tampering? |
| A10 SSRF | Outbound requests validated? Internal IPs blocked from user-controlled URLs? |
Verify: Each applicable item is either addressed or explicitly accepted as a known risk.
.gitignore and use pre-commit hooks).Verify: git grep -i 'password\|secret\|key\|token' returns no hardcoded values in code.
Verify: All external input has explicit validation with reject-by-default behavior.
Verify: List every permission granted by this code. Is each one required?
| Excuse | Rebuttal |
|---|---|
| "It's internal only" | Internal services get breached too. Zero-trust applies internally. |
| "We'll add auth later" | Auth bolted on later is always broken. Design it in from the start. |
| "The input is from our own frontend" | Attackers don't use your frontend. Validate on the server, always. |
| "It's a dev environment" | Dev environments get credentials from prod. Treat them accordingly. |
| "The secret is in a config file, not code" | Is the config file in git? Is it world-readable? Config files are not safe. |
git grep clean)~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.