threat-modeling — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited threat-modeling (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.
Produce a lightweight, sprint-compatible threat model: 15-30 minutes of structured analysis, not a multi-week security assessment. The output is a threat model document plus security stories the team can schedule.
Actor → Component → ... → Store, marking each trust boundary crossing with ||. If the user has architecture docs or code, read them instead of asking.| Category | Question to ask | Typical mitigations |
|---|---|---|
| Spoofing | Can someone pretend to be a user, service, or device? | Strong authentication, mTLS, signed tokens |
| Tampering | Can data be modified in transit or at rest? | TLS, integrity checks, signed payloads, immutable logs |
| Repudiation | Can an actor deny performing an action? | Audit logging with identity + timestamp, log integrity |
| Information disclosure | Can data leak to the wrong party? | Encryption, least-privilege access, output filtering, masking |
| Denial of service | Can the component be made unavailable? | Rate limiting, quotas, timeouts, autoscaling, circuit breakers |
| Elevation of privilege | Can a user gain rights they shouldn't have? | AuthZ checks at every boundary, input validation, sandboxing |
# Threat Model: [Feature Name]
**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD] · **Sprint/Milestone:** [if applicable] · **Participants:** [names/roles]
## Feature Description
[2-3 sentences: what it does and what data it touches]
## Data Flow
[User → Frontend || API Gateway → Service → Database]
(|| marks trust boundary crossings)
## STRIDE Analysis
| # | Threat | Category | Likelihood | Impact | Risk | Mitigation |
|---|--------|----------|-----------|--------|------|------------|
| 1 | [description] | [S/T/R/I/D/E] | H/M/L | H/M/L | H/M/L | [concrete control] |
## Security Stories Generated
- [ ] [Story title] — [priority] — [estimate if known]
## Residual Risks (accepted)
- [Low-risk threat] — [one-line justification for accepting]**As** [the system/security role], **I want** [security control], **so that** [risk is mitigated].
**Threat:** [STRIDE category + threat #] · **Source:** threat model [feature name]
**Acceptance:** Given [precondition], when [attack vector attempted], then [system prevents/detects/alerts].~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.