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

0day Scanner

skill-security-phoenix-demo-security-skills-claude-code-0day-scanner · by Security-Phoenix-demo

A Claude skill from Security-Phoenix-demo/security-skills-claude-code.

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

Install

$ agentstack add skill-security-phoenix-demo-security-skills-claude-code-0day-scanner

✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

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

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.

View the full security report →

Verified badge

Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.

AgentStack Verified badge Links to your public security report.
[![AgentStack Verified](https://agentstack.voostack.com/badges/verified.svg)](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-security-phoenix-demo-security-skills-claude-code-0day-scanner)

Reliability & compatibility

Security review passed
0 installs to date
no reviews yet
3mo 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 0day Scanner? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

0-Day Vulnerability Scanner Skill

Purpose

Analyze code changes (commits, PRs, files) for potential zero-day security vulnerabilities using LLM-powered analysis. This skill provides conversational access to the 0-Day Scanner Agent with real-time token monitoring and knowledge graph integration.

> Stack-aware fallback (when MCP unavailable): if analyze_for_zero_day_vulnerabilities is not reachable, detect the changed files' language(s) and load the matching reference pack from > ../Security-automated-claude-skills/.claude/skills/security-reviewer/languages/{python,javascript-typescript,go,java,rust,ruby,dotnet}.md > to drive a diff-only review using the assistant's built-in tools. Apply the 8-point check from > ../Security-automated-claude-skills/.claude/skills/security-reviewer/SKILL.md scoped to the diff.

When to Use

  • User asks to "scan for vulnerabilities" or "check for security issues"
  • User mentions "0-day", "zero-day", or "security analysis"
  • User wants to analyze a specific commit, PR, or file for security
  • User requests vulnerability assessment during code review

Workflow

1. Parse User Request

Extract:

  • Target: Commit SHA, PR number, file path, or branch
  • Scope: Single commit (light), multiple commits (standard), or full branch (deep)
  • Budget: Max cost willing to spend (default: $0.10 for light mode)
  • Options: Link to graph, save to DB, return reasoning

2. Invoke Scanner

Use MCP tool analyze_for_zero_day_vulnerabilities:

{
  "commit_sha": "abc123def456",
  "mode": "light",
  "max_cost_usd": 0.10,
  "link_to_graph": true,
  "save_to_db": true,
  "stream_tokens": true,
  "return_reasoning": true
}

3. Monitor Progress

  • Stream token usage updates to user
  • Report estimated cost and time remaining
  • Show findings as they're discovered

4. Present Results

If vulnerabilities found:

  • Summarize each vulnerability with severity and type
  • Show affected code and proof of concept
  • Display knowledge graph context (affected symbols, blast radius)
  • Provide remediation suggestions

If no vulnerabilities found:

  • Confirm analysis completed successfully
  • Report token usage and cost
  • Suggest next steps (e.g., analyze related commits)

5. Follow-Up Actions

Offer to:

  • Analyze related commits or PRs
  • Set up continuous monitoring for the repository
  • Link findings to existing CVEs
  • Generate detailed security report

Example Interactions

Example 1: Quick Commit Analysis

User: "Analyze commit abc123 for security vulnerabilities"

Assistant:

I'll analyze commit abc123 for potential zero-day vulnerabilities using light-touch mode (estimated cost: $0.05).

[Analyzing commit abc123...]
Token usage: 3,500 input + 800 output = 4,300 total ($0.043)

🔴 **CRITICAL VULNERABILITY FOUND**

**Type**: SQL Injection
**Severity**: Critical
**Confidence**: 85%

**Description**: SQL injection vulnerability found where user input is directly concatenated into a query string without parameterization.

**Vulnerable Code**:
```python
query = f"SELECT * FROM users WHERE id={user_id}"  # VULNERABLE: unsanitized input

Proof of Concept:

' OR 1=1 --

Knowledge Graph Context:

  • Affected symbols: getUserById, authenticateUser
  • Entry point paths: handleRequestauthenticateUsergetUserById
  • Blast radius: 5 direct callers, 23 transitive callers

Remediation: Use parameterized queries or prepared statements to prevent SQL injection.

Would you like me to:

  1. Analyze related commits for similar issues
  2. Set up continuous monitoring for this repository
  3. Generate a detailed security report

### Example 2: PR Review

**User**: "Check PR #1234 for security issues, budget $0.20"

**Assistant**:

I'll analyze PR #1234 for security vulnerabilities with a budget of $0.20.

[Fetching PR #1234: "Add user authentication"] [Found 3 commits to analyze]

[Analyzing commit 1/3...] Token usage: 4,200 tokens ($0.042) ✅ No vulnerabilities found

[Analyzing commit 2/3...] Token usage: 5,100 tokens ($0.051) 🟡 MEDIUM VULNERABILITY FOUND

Type: Weak Cryptography Severity: Medium Description: Uses MD5 for password hashing instead of bcrypt/scrypt

[Analyzing commit 3/3...] Token usage: 3,800 tokens ($0.038) ✅ No vulnerabilities found

Summary:

  • Total commits analyzed: 3
  • Vulnerabilities found: 1 (Medium)
  • Total cost: $0.131 / $0.20 budget
  • Analysis time: 45 seconds

Would you like details on the weak cryptography finding?


### Example 3: File Analysis

**User**: "Is src/auth.ts secure?"

**Assistant**:

I'll analyze the current state of src/auth.ts for security vulnerabilities.

[Reading file: src/auth.ts] [Analyzing for vulnerabilities...]

Token usage: 2,800 input + 600 output = 3,400 total ($0.034)

NO CRITICAL VULNERABILITIES FOUND

However, I noticed some security best practices that could be improved:

  1. Rate Limiting: No rate limiting on login attempts (potential brute force)
  2. Session Timeout: Session timeout is set to 24 hours (consider reducing)
  3. Error Messages: Error messages reveal whether username exists (information disclosure)

These are not exploitable vulnerabilities but could strengthen security posture.

Would you like me to:

  1. Analyze the git history of this file for past vulnerabilities
  2. Check related authentication files
  3. Generate a security hardening checklist

### Example 4: Full Repository Analysis

**User**: "Scan the entire repository for 0-day vulnerabilities in the last 30 days, budget $5"

**Assistant**:

I'll perform a comprehensive security audit of the repository, analyzing all commits from the last 30 days with a budget of $5.00.

[Fetching commits from main and develop branches...] [Found 87 commits to analyze] [Estimated cost: $4.35]

[Progress: 10/87 commits analyzed (11%)] Token usage: 3,200 tokens ($0.48) Findings: 1 (Medium)

[Progress: 25/87 commits analyzed (29%)] Token usage: 8,100 tokens ($1.22) Findings: 2 (1 High, 1 Medium)

[Progress: 50/87 commits analyzed (57%)] Token usage: 16,500 tokens ($2.48) Findings: 4 (1 Critical, 1 High, 2 Medium)

🔴 CRITICAL VULNERABILITY FOUND (Commit: def456) Type: Command Injection File: src/utils/exec.ts Blast Radius: 12 direct callers, 45 transitive

[Progress: 75/87 commits analyzed (86%)] Token usage: 24,800 tokens ($3.72) Findings: 5 (1 Critical, 2 High, 2 Medium)

[Progress: 87/87 commits analyzed (100%)] ✅ ANALYSIS COMPLETE

Summary:

  • Total commits analyzed: 87
  • Date range: 2026-01-28 to 2026-02-27
  • Branches: main, develop
  • Total cost: $4.18 / $5.00 budget
  • Analysis time: 12 minutes

Findings:

  • 🔴 Critical: 1
  • 🟠 High: 2
  • 🟡 Medium: 2
  • 🟢 Low: 0

Top Vulnerabilities:

  1. Command Injection in src/utils/exec.ts (Critical)
  2. SQL Injection in src/db/queries.ts (High)
  3. XSS in src/components/UserProfile.tsx (High)
  4. Weak Cryptography in src/auth/hash.ts (Medium)
  5. Path Traversal in src/api/files.ts (Medium)

Affected Files: 5 files across 12 modules Knowledge Graph: All vulnerabilities linked to affected symbols

Would you like me to:

  1. Generate a detailed security report with remediation steps
  2. Analyze specific vulnerabilities in depth
  3. Set up continuous monitoring for this repository
  4. Export findings to CSV/JSON

## Key APIs

### MCP Tool

```typescript
analyze_for_zero_day_vulnerabilities({
  // Input source (one required)
  commit_sha?: string,
  pr_number?: number,
  file_path?: string,
  diff?: string,
  full_repo?: boolean,              // Analyze entire repository
  
  // Full repo options (when full_repo=true)
  max_commits?: number,             // Max commits to analyze (default: 100)
  since_date?: string,              // ISO 8601 date (e.g., "2026-01-01T00:00:00Z")
  since_days?: number,              // Scan last N days (alternative to since_date)
  branches?: string[],              // Branches to scan (default: ["main", "master"])
  
  // Analysis options
  mode: "light" | "standard" | "deep",
  max_cost_usd?: number,            // Budget limit (default: 0.10 for single, 5.00 for full repo)
  provider?: "openai" | "anthropic" | "gemini",
  model?: string,
  
  // Integration
  link_to_graph?: boolean,
  save_to_db?: boolean,
  stream_tokens?: boolean,
  return_reasoning?: boolean
})

REST API

# Light-touch analysis
POST /api/v1/zeroday/analyze/light
{
  "commit_sha": "abc123",
  "repo_url": "https://github.com/owner/repo",
  "mode": "light",
  "max_cost_usd": 0.10
}

# Full repository analysis
POST /api/v1/zeroday/analyze/full-repo
{
  "repo_url": "https://github.com/owner/repo",
  "mode": "standard",
  "max_commits": 100,
  "since_days": 30,
  "branches": ["main", "develop"],
  "max_cost_usd": 5.00,
  "link_to_graph": true,
  "stream_tokens": true
}

# Programmatic launch
POST /api/v1/zeroday/scans/launch
{
  "scan_type": "commit",
  "target": {"repo_url": "...", "commit_sha": "..."},
  "options": {"mode": "light", "max_cost_usd": 0.50}
}

# Get scan status
GET /api/v1/zeroday/scans/{scan_id}

# Stream updates (SSE)
GET /api/v1/zeroday/scans/{scan_id}/stream

Configuration

Default Settings

  • Mode: light (for chat invocations)
  • Budget: $0.10 per analysis
  • Provider: openai
  • Model: gpt-4o-mini (light mode), gpt-4o (standard/deep)
  • Link to Graph: true
  • Save to DB: true
  • Stream Tokens: true

User Preferences

Users can override defaults:

"Analyze commit abc123 using Claude Sonnet, budget $0.50"
"Scan PR #1234 in deep mode, don't save to database"

Best Practices

  1. Start with Light Mode: Use light mode for interactive chat analysis
  2. Set Budget Limits: Always specify maxcostusd to prevent runaway costs
  3. Stream Token Usage: Enable streaming for real-time cost visibility
  4. Link to Graph: Enable graph linking for blast radius analysis
  5. Return Reasoning: Include LLM reasoning for transparency

Integration Points

  • Phoenix Code Analyzer: Links findings to knowledge graph
  • CVE Intelligence: Correlates findings with known CVEs
  • SAST Agent: Complements static analysis with 0-day detection
  • Threat Modeling: Feeds vulnerabilities into threat models

Limitations

  • False Positives: LLM may flag defensive coding as vulnerabilities
  • Cost: Deep analysis can be expensive ($0.20-$1.00 per scan)
  • Context: Limited to commit diff (no full codebase context in light mode)
  • Rate Limits: Subject to GitHub API and LLM provider rate limits

Example Cypher Queries

-- Get all 0-day vulnerabilities in repository
MATCH (v:Vulnerability)
WHERE v.detected_at > datetime() - duration({days: 7})
RETURN v.vuln_type, v.severity, v.commit_sha

-- Find functions with critical vulnerabilities
MATCH (v:Vulnerability {severity: 'critical'})-[:AFFECTS]->(f:Function)
RETURN f.name, f.filePath, v.vuln_type

-- Calculate vulnerability density by file
MATCH (v:Vulnerability)-[:AFFECTS]->(s)
WITH s.filePath AS file, COUNT(v) AS vuln_count
RETURN file, vuln_count
ORDER BY vuln_count DESC

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.