AgentStack
SKILL unreviewed Apache-2.0 Self-run

Security Compliance Review

skill-addxai-enterprise-harness-engineering-security-compliance-review · by addxai

Perform a structured security and compliance review using evidence from code/config/docs. Use for MR/PR review, architecture review, and periodic full scans. Detects secrets exposure, PII leakage, access control gaps, and compliance violations.

No reviews yet
0 installs
12 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-addxai-enterprise-harness-engineering-security-compliance-review

Open-source listing — not yet scanned by AgentStack. Follow the source repository for install instructions.

Security review

⚠ Flagged

1 finding(s); flagged for manual review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • Prompt-injection patterns
  • Secret / credential exfiltration
  • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • Untrusted network calls
  • Known-malicious package signatures
  • high Possible prompt-injection directive.

What it can access

  • Network access No
  • Filesystem access No
  • Shell / process execution No
  • Environment & secrets No
  • Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

Are you the author of Security Compliance Review? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

Security & Compliance Review

A comprehensive security and compliance review framework. Based on input materials and baseline policies, intelligently determines the risk surface and provides actionable remediation recommendations.

For detailed rules and examples, see [references/REFERENCE.md](references/REFERENCE.md).

Execution Flow

Step 0: Pre-Gate — System Type Determination (Blocking)

  • Must first determine the system type: Consumer-facing / Internal product / Mixed
  • If unable to determine: output a "clarification question" first (blocking conclusion); do not proceed to subsequent checks until the answer is received

Step 1: Relevance Assessment

  1. Define scope first: Prioritize MR/diff/specified directory; fall back to scanning the repository
  2. Find evidence next: Code/configuration/CI/Helm/dependencies
  3. Then draw conclusions: Relevant / Not Relevant (N/A) / Unknown
  4. Unknown triggers clarification/blocking only for "must-clarify items"

Step 2: Risk Map Check

Must output a table: Risk Category | Relevance | Trigger Clues | Handling | Evidence/Recommendations

Required risk categories to cover:

  • R0 System Type
  • R4 Bulk Capability/Export
  • R5 Observation Leakage (Logs/Tracking/Error Reporting)
  • R6 Secrets/Credentials
  • R7 Third-Party Boundary
  • R11 Zero Human Access to High-Sensitivity Data (Video/Address/Phone)
  • R12 Retention & Deletion/DSAR
  • R14 Agent Skills Supply Chain
  • R15 Location Permissions

Step 3: Categorized Handling by Rules

Company Standard Items (enforced by default, no clarification needed)

If evidence is insufficient: handling = Default standard + recommendation, with the gap marked as "evidence needed (not clarification)":

  • Unified Observability SDK + masking/export restrictions/audit (R5)
  • Secrets/credentials: Secret Zero, no plaintext/hard-coded, rotation and audit (R6)
  • CI/Helm/IaC must use Vault injection and controlled references
  • Ops/support access boundary: restricted platform, default masking, default no-export, ticket-bound, full audit
Agent Skills Supply Chain (R14, triggered when Skills files detected)

If the MR/repository contains SKILL.md, .cursor/skills/, .cursor/rules/, AGENTS.md:

  • Check for prompt injection patterns (ignore previous instructions, bypass safety, etc.)
  • Check for hard-coded credentials (API Keys, Tokens, connection strings)
  • Check for executable scripts (scripts/ directory; risk is 2.12x that of instruction-only Skills)
  • Check for hidden HTML comments (``, invisible to humans but readable by LLMs)
  • Check for internal information leakage (internal domains, IP addresses)
  • If none of the above files exist: mark Not Relevant (N/A)
Must-Clarify Items (blocking when missing)
  • System type
  • Whether new/relaxed export/bulk capability is added (export/download/csv/xlsx/report/bulk/batch clues)
  • Third-party boundary (new/modified third-party SDK/Webhook/external API, visible field mappings)
  • Encryption and key management (involving PIN/password/OTP/token/key/Private Key, etc.)
  • New PII fields and masking approach (beyond user_id/SN/email)
Location Permissions (R15, company-level privacy red line)

Absolutely prohibited to request user geolocation permissions on any platform, including but not limited to:

  • Android: ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION, ACCESS_COARSE_LOCATION, ACCESS_BACKGROUND_LOCATION
  • iOS: NSLocationWhenInUseUsageDescription, NSLocationAlwaysUsageDescription
  • Web: navigator.geolocation, Permissions API geolocation
  • Flutter: geolocator, location and other location plugins

City/region information may only be obtained through user's active selection. The selection result must be persisted and not re-asked.

Red Lines (finding triggers failure)
  • Employee (including ops/support) can directly access/export raw video: immediate Remediation Required / Fail
  • Plaintext storage/transmission/logging of passwords, tokens, keys, or other credential elements: high-risk blocking
  • Human-viewable entry points for high-sensitivity data (address/phone): immediate Remediation Required / Fail
  • Requesting any form of geolocation permission: immediate Remediation Required / Fail (R15)

Output Structure

Must strictly follow this Markdown structure:

2.0 Scope & Gates

- **scope**: Modules/directories/PR scope covered by this review
- **System type and adopted strategy**: Consumer-facing / Internal product / Mixed
- **Blocking items (if any)**: List blocking items (reference R#/G#/E#)
- **Clarification questions and unknowns**: Cover only the must-clarify checklist

2.1 Summary

- **Conclusion**: Pass / Conditional Pass / Fail
- **Risk level**: Low / Medium / High
- **Risk item summary**: Reference R#
- **Key evidence index**: List E# only

2.2 Risk Map

| Risk ID | Risk Category | Relevance | Trigger Clues | Handling | Evidence/Recommendations | |--------|----------|--------|----------|----------|-----------| | R0 | System Type | Relevant/N/A/Unknown | Clues | Clarify/Default standard+recommendation/Block | E#/Recommendations |

2.3 Gap List

| Gap ID | Gap Description | Risk Level | Related Risk Item | Evidence Reference | Recommended Remediation | |--------|----------|----------|------------|----------|----------| | G1 | Description | High/Medium/Low | R# | E# | A# |

2.4 Recommendations & Checklist (Actions)

| Priority | Action ID | Recommendation | Related Gap | Evidence Reference | |--------|-----------|----------|----------|----------| | Fix Now | A1 | Specific recommendation | G# | E# |

2.5 Evidence Appendix

| Evidence ID | Evidence Type | Reference | Excerpt | |-------------|----------|------|------| | E1 | Doc/Code/Config | [path:Lx-Ly](path) | Excerpt |

Examples

Bad - Hard-coded Secret

API_KEY = "sk-abcdef"  # Violates R6

Good - Using Vault

API_KEY = vault.read('myapp/api-key')

For more examples, see [references/REFERENCE.md](references/REFERENCE.md#complete-examples).

Exemptions

| Scenario | Condition | |------|------| | Local dev environment | Configuration used only for local testing (must not be committed to repository) | | Legacy system migration | Legacy system undergoing compliance remediation (migration plan must be provided) |

Exemption method: /override skill=security-compliance-review reason="..." evidence="..."

References

  • OWASP Top 10
  • [Detailed Reference Document](references/REFERENCE.md)

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet — be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.