AgentStack
Browse Sign in
Browse Why AgentStack Sell Docs
Sign in
SKILL unreviewed MIT Self-run

Security And Hardening

skill-celestialdust-achilles-skills-security-and-hardening · by celestialdust

Audits a code diff for security vulnerabilities before it can ship. MUST run as a fresh, code-cold reviewer on every Implement diff in the Review fan-out — and any time code touches user input, auth, sessions, secrets, data storage, external/URL fetches, file uploads, or LLM output. A CRITICAL/HIGH finding or a secret in the diff is a hard STOP: the slice is halted, never opened as a PR.

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

Install

$ agentstack add skill-celestialdust-achilles-skills-security-and-hardening

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 Dangerous shell/eval execution.

What it can access

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

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.

View the full security report →

Reliability & compatibility

Not yet reviewed
0 installs to date
no reviews yet
1mo ago

Declared compatibility

Claude CodeClaude Desktop

Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.

Preview Execution monitoring

We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.

How agent discovery & health will work →
Are you the author of Security And Hardening? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

security

Purpose

Stage: Review (agent fan-out) — one of three internal gates (with code-review, performance-optimization).

Security-first development practices for web applications. Treat every external input as hostile, every secret as sacred, and every authorization check as mandatory. Security isn't a phase — it's a constraint on every line of code that touches user data, authentication, or external systems.

When to use / when to skip

  • Building anything that accepts user input
  • Implementing authentication or authorization
  • Storing or transmitting sensitive data
  • Integrating with external APIs or services
  • Adding file uploads, webhooks, or callbacks
  • Handling payment or PII data

Skip only when the diff is docs/config-only with no executable surface; even then, secret-scan the diff. Never skip on a diff that touches input, auth, secrets, fetches, or LLM output.

Inputs

Consumes (refuse-to-run if absent):

  • The slice's implementation diff — the code under review. No diff ⇒ nothing to audit ⇒ refuse to run.

Contextual (read-only; sharpens the audit, not refuse-to-run):

  • The slice id and its frozen Regression surface (from STATE.md / plan.md) — lets a CRITICAL/secret be localized to this slice vs. classified repo-wide.
  • acceptance.md security-observable scenarios — when the feature has LLM or untrusted-input surfaces, to know which abuse cases were promised.

Dispatch contract: you run as a fresh, code-cold subagent in parallel on the security axis (maker≠checker; parallelism.md mech f) with no test-write access. You read the diff cold — you do not see the implementer's reasoning, and you must not weaken any test or the frozen acceptance.md/Regression surface to make a finding go away (that is gate-erosion).

Process: Threat Model First

Controls bolted on without a threat model are guesses. Before hardening, spend five minutes thinking like an attacker:

  1. Map the trust boundaries. Where does untrusted data cross into your system? HTTP requests, form fields, file uploads, webhooks, third-party APIs, message queues, and LLM output. Every boundary is attack surface.
  2. Name the assets. What's worth stealing or breaking? Credentials, PII, payment data, admin actions, money movement.
  3. Run STRIDE over each boundary — a quick lens, not a ceremony:

| Threat | Ask | Typical mitigation | |---|---|---| | Spoofing | Can someone impersonate a user/service? | Authentication, signature verification | | Tampering | Can data be altered in transit or at rest? | Integrity checks, parameterized queries, HTTPS | | Repudiation | Can an action be denied later? | Audit logging of security events | | Information disclosure | Can data leak? | Encryption, field allowlists, generic errors | | Denial of service | Can it be overwhelmed? | Rate limiting, input size caps, timeouts | | Elevation of privilege | Can a user gain rights they shouldn't? | Authorization checks, least privilege |

  1. Write abuse cases next to use cases. For each feature, ask "how would I misuse this?" — then make that your first test.

If you can't name the trust boundaries for a feature, you're not ready to secure it. This is OWASP A04: Insecure Design — most breaches begin in design, not code.

The Three-Tier Boundary System

Always Do (No Exceptions)

  • Validate all external input at the system boundary (API routes, form handlers)
  • Parameterize all database queries — never concatenate user input into SQL
  • Encode output to prevent XSS (use framework auto-escaping, don't bypass it)
  • Use HTTPS for all external communication
  • Hash passwords with bcrypt/scrypt/argon2 (never store plaintext)
  • Set security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options)
  • Use httpOnly, secure, sameSite cookies for sessions
  • Run npm audit (or equivalent) before every release

Ask First (Requires Human Approval)

  • Adding new authentication flows or changing auth logic
  • Storing new categories of sensitive data (PII, payment info)
  • Adding new external service integrations
  • Changing CORS configuration
  • Adding file upload handlers
  • Modifying rate limiting or throttling
  • Granting elevated permissions or roles

Never Do

  • Never commit secrets to version control (API keys, passwords, tokens)
  • Never log sensitive data (passwords, tokens, full credit card numbers)
  • Never trust client-side validation as a security boundary
  • Never disable security headers for convenience
  • Never use eval() or innerHTML with user-provided data
  • Never store sessions in client-accessible storage (localStorage for auth tokens)
  • Never expose stack traces or internal error details to users

OWASP Top 10 Prevention Patterns

These are prevention patterns, not a ranking. For the 2021 ordering, see the quick-reference table in ../../references/security-checklist.md.

Injection (SQL, NoSQL, OS Command)

// BAD: SQL injection via string concatenation
const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = '${userId}'`;

// GOOD: Parameterized query
const user = await db.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1', [userId]);

// GOOD: ORM with parameterized input
const user = await prisma.user.findUnique({ where: { id: userId } });

Broken Authentication

// Password hashing
import { hash, compare } from 'bcrypt';

const SALT_ROUNDS = 12;
const hashedPassword = await hash(plaintext, SALT_ROUNDS);
const isValid = await compare(plaintext, hashedPassword);

// Session management
app.use(session({
  secret: process.env.SESSION_SECRET,  // From environment, not code
  resave: false,
  saveUninitialized: false,
  cookie: {
    httpOnly: true,     // Not accessible via JavaScript
    secure: true,       // HTTPS only
    sameSite: 'lax',    // CSRF protection
    maxAge: 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000,  // 24 hours
  },
}));

Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)

// BAD: Rendering user input as HTML
element.innerHTML = userInput;

// GOOD: Use framework auto-escaping (React does this by default)
return {userInput};

// If you MUST render HTML, sanitize first
import DOMPurify from 'dompurify';
const clean = DOMPurify.sanitize(userInput);

Broken Access Control

// Always check authorization, not just authentication
app.patch('/api/tasks/:id', authenticate, async (req, res) => {
  const task = await taskService.findById(req.params.id);

  // Check that the authenticated user owns this resource
  if (task.ownerId !== req.user.id) {
    return res.status(403).json({
      error: { code: 'FORBIDDEN', message: 'Not authorized to modify this task' }
    });
  }

  // Proceed with update
  const updated = await taskService.update(req.params.id, req.body);
  return res.json(updated);
});

Security Misconfiguration

// Security headers (use helmet for Express)
import helmet from 'helmet';
app.use(helmet());

// Content Security Policy
app.use(helmet.contentSecurityPolicy({
  directives: {
    defaultSrc: ["'self'"],
    scriptSrc: ["'self'"],
    styleSrc: ["'self'", "'unsafe-inline'"],  // Tighten if possible
    imgSrc: ["'self'", 'data:', 'https:'],
    connectSrc: ["'self'"],
  },
}));

// CORS — restrict to known origins
app.use(cors({
  origin: process.env.ALLOWED_ORIGINS?.split(',') || 'http://localhost:3000',
  credentials: true,
}));

Sensitive Data Exposure

// Never return sensitive fields in API responses
function sanitizeUser(user: UserRecord): PublicUser {
  const { passwordHash, resetToken, ...publicFields } = user;
  return publicFields;
}

// Use environment variables for secrets
const API_KEY = process.env.STRIPE_API_KEY;
if (!API_KEY) throw new Error('STRIPE_API_KEY not configured');

Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Any time the server fetches a URL the user influenced — webhooks, "import from URL", image proxies, link previews — an attacker can aim it at internal services (cloud metadata, localhost, private IPs).

// BAD: fetch whatever the user gives you
await fetch(req.body.webhookUrl);

// GOOD: allowlist scheme + host, reject if ANY resolved IP is private, forbid redirects
import { lookup } from 'node:dns/promises';
import ipaddr from 'ipaddr.js';

const ALLOWED_HOSTS = new Set(['hooks.example.com']);

async function assertSafeUrl(raw: string): Promise {
  const url = new URL(raw);
  if (url.protocol !== 'https:') throw new Error('https only');
  if (!ALLOWED_HOSTS.has(url.hostname)) throw new Error('host not allowed');
  // Resolve ALL records; a single private/reserved address fails the check.
  const addrs = await lookup(url.hostname, { all: true });
  if (addrs.some((a) => ipaddr.parse(a.address).range() !== 'unicast')) {
    throw new Error('private/reserved IP');
  }
  return url;
}

await fetch(await assertSafeUrl(req.body.webhookUrl), { redirect: 'error' });

The range() !== 'unicast' check covers loopback, link-local 169.254.169.254 (cloud metadata, the #1 SSRF target), private, and unique-local ranges across IPv4 and IPv6.

Caveat — this still has a TOCTOU gap. fetch resolves DNS again after the check, so an attacker using a short-TTL record can rebind to an internal IP between validation and connection. For high-risk surfaces, resolve once and connect to the pinned IP, or put a filtering agent in front (request-filtering-agent / ssrf-req-filter).

Input Validation Patterns

Schema Validation at Boundaries

import { z } from 'zod';

const CreateTaskSchema = z.object({
  title: z.string().min(1).max(200).trim(),
  description: z.string().max(2000).optional(),
  priority: z.enum(['low', 'medium', 'high']).default('medium'),
  dueDate: z.string().datetime().optional(),
});

// Validate at the route handler
app.post('/api/tasks', async (req, res) => {
  const result = CreateTaskSchema.safeParse(req.body);
  if (!result.success) {
    return res.status(422).json({
      error: {
        code: 'VALIDATION_ERROR',
        message: 'Invalid input',
        details: result.error.flatten(),
      },
    });
  }
  // result.data is now typed and validated
  const task = await taskService.create(result.data);
  return res.status(201).json(task);
});

File Upload Safety

// Restrict file types and sizes
const ALLOWED_TYPES = ['image/jpeg', 'image/png', 'image/webp'];
const MAX_SIZE = 5 * 1024 * 1024; // 5MB

function validateUpload(file: UploadedFile) {
  if (!ALLOWED_TYPES.includes(file.mimetype)) {
    throw new ValidationError('File type not allowed');
  }
  if (file.size > MAX_SIZE) {
    throw new ValidationError('File too large (max 5MB)');
  }
  // Don't trust the file extension — check magic bytes if critical
}

Triaging npm audit Results

Not all audit findings require immediate action. Use this decision tree:

npm audit reports a vulnerability
├── Severity: critical or high
│   ├── Is the vulnerable code reachable in your app?
│   │   ├── YES --> Fix immediately (update, patch, or replace the dependency)
│   │   └── NO (dev-only dep, unused code path) --> Fix soon, but not a blocker
│   └── Is a fix available?
│       ├── YES --> Update to the patched version
│       └── NO --> Check for workarounds, consider replacing the dependency, or add to allowlist with a review date
├── Severity: moderate
│   ├── Reachable in production? --> Fix in the next release cycle
│   └── Dev-only? --> Fix when convenient, track in backlog
└── Severity: low
    └── Track and fix during regular dependency updates

Key questions:

  • Is the vulnerable function actually called in your code path?
  • Is the dependency a runtime dependency or dev-only?
  • Is the vulnerability exploitable given your deployment context (e.g., a server-side vulnerability in a client-only app)?

When you defer a fix, document the reason and set a review date.

Supply-Chain Hygiene

npm audit catches known CVEs; it won't catch a malicious or typosquatted package. Also:

  • Commit the lockfile and install with npm ci (not npm install) in CI — reproducible builds, no silent version drift.
  • Review new dependencies before adding them — maintenance, download counts, and whether they truly earn their place. Every dependency is attack surface (OWASP A06: Vulnerable Components, LLM03: Supply Chain).
  • Be wary of postinstall scripts in unfamiliar packages — they run arbitrary code at install time.
  • Watch for typosquatscross-env vs crossenv, react-dom vs reactdom.

Rate Limiting

import rateLimit from 'express-rate-limit';

// General API rate limit
app.use('/api/', rateLimit({
  windowMs: 15 * 60 * 1000, // 15 minutes
  max: 100,                   // 100 requests per window
  standardHeaders: true,
  legacyHeaders: false,
}));

// Stricter limit for auth endpoints
app.use('/api/auth/', rateLimit({
  windowMs: 15 * 60 * 1000,
  max: 10,  // 10 attempts per 15 minutes
}));

Secrets Management

.env files:
  ├── .env.example  → Committed (template with placeholder values)
  ├── .env          → NOT committed (contains real secrets)
  └── .env.local    → NOT committed (local overrides)

.gitignore must include:
  .env
  .env.local
  .env.*.local
  *.pem
  *.key

Always check before committing:

# Check for accidentally staged secrets
git diff --cached | grep -i "password\|secret\|api_key\|token"

If a secret is ever committed, rotate it. Deleting the line or rewriting history is not enough — assume it's compromised the moment it reaches a remote. Revoke and reissue the key first, then purge it from history.

Securing AI / LLM Features

If your app calls an LLM — chatbots, summarizers, agents, RAG — it inherits a new attack surface. Map it to the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications (2025):

  • Treat all model output as untrusted input (LLM05: Improper Output Handling). Never pass LLM output straight into eval, SQL, a shell, innerHTML, or a file path. Validate and encode it exactly as you would raw user input.
  • Assume prompts can be hijacked (LLM01: Prompt Injection). Untrusted text in the context window — a user message, a fetched web page, a PDF — can carry instructions. The system prompt is not a security boundary; enforce permissions in code, not in the prompt.
  • Keep secrets and other users' data out of prompts (LLM02 / LLM07). Anything in the context can be echoed back. Don't put API keys, cross-tenant data, or the full system prompt where the model can repeat it.
  • Constrain tool and agent permissions (LLM06: Excessive Agency). Scope tools to the minimum, require confirmation for destructive or irreversible actions, and validate every tool argument.
  • Bound consumption (LLM10: Unbounded Consumption). Cap tokens, request rate, and loop/recursion depth so a crafted input can't run up cost or hang the system.
  • Isolate retrieval data (LLM08: Vector and Embedding Weaknesses). In RAG, treat the vector store as a trust boundary: partition embeddings per tenant so one user can't retrieve another's data, and validate documents before indexing so poisoned content can't steer answers.
// BAD: trusting model output as a command or as markup
const sql = await llm.generate(`Write SQL for: ${userQuestion}`);
await db.query(sql);                                   // arbitrary query execution
container.innerHTML = await llm.reply(userMessage);   // stored XSS, via the model

// GOOD: model output is data — parse defensively, then validate, then encode
let intent;
try {
  intent = CommandSchema.parse(JSON.parse(await llm.replyJson(userMessage)));
} catch {
  throw new ValidationError('unexpected model output'); // JSON.parse or schema failed
}
await runAllowlistedAction(intent.action, intent.params);
container.textContent = await llm.reply(user

…

## Source & license

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

- **Author:** [celestialdust](https://github.com/celestialdust)
- **Source:** [celestialdust/achilles-skills](https://github.com/celestialdust/achilles-skills)
- **License:** MIT

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.