Threat model triage
Skill alpha-omega-security/threat-model/skills/threat-model-triage
Triage one inbound vulnerability report, scanner hit, fuzzer artifact, or AI finding against a finished threat model. USE WHEN asked whether a finding is valid or in scope. Applies the §1.1 routing algorithm and §1.17 precedence to assign exactly one closed disposition with section and provenance citations; inferred claims may escalate but never close, and assumptions close only what the model's declared triage policy permits. A finding with no supported route is MODEL-GAP and triggers §1.16. DO NOT USE FOR: producing a model from scratch or backtesting a corpus.From its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add alpha-omega-security/threat-model --skill threat-model-triageAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
SKILL.md
7.8 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Threat Model — Triage (route one finding)
The consumer side of the model. Given an inbound finding and a finished (or drafted) threat model, assign exactly one disposition from the closed §1.17 set, citing the section that licenses it. The response is "see threat model §X", not ad-hoc prose.
Requires a threat model produced by the threat-model orchestrator (or an
equivalent document following
output-structure.md). If no
such model exists, stop and recommend producing one first.
Route from the prose and the threat-model.yaml sidecar, never from the
threat-model.json export. The JSON drops disposition_precedence,
disclaimed-property tiers, and known-non-finding component/symptom scope, so a
consumer holding only the JSON cannot apply §1.17 first-match ordering or the
security-critical floor. It states the contract; it cannot route a report
against it.
Routing algorithm (the §1.1 triager quick-start)
- Locate the sink → look up its row in the §1.7 input-trust table (or the §1.8 output statement, for findings about what downstream consumers may assume).
- Locate the contract dimension → for state corruption, overflow, recursion, callback execution, deserialization, lifecycle, concurrency, or complexity findings, consult the component's contract-dimension row and its routed owning claim in §1.3/§1.5/§1.7/§1.10/§1.11/§1.12 or unresolved question in §1.18. Do not infer failure semantics from the parameter trust row alone.
- Check the attacker capability and control kind the finding requires against §1.7/§1.10. Distinguish control of data from control of size, type/class, callback code, object topology, collaborator implementation, or serialized state.
- Check the affected component against §1.2/§1.3, and any required build flag against §1.6.
- If the root cause lies in a dependency, apply §1.9.
- Check §1.15 for an exact known non-finding match: same component or sink, symptom/attack class, and required conditions, with a current stable discharge reference. Textual resemblance is insufficient.
- Apply §1.17's first-match precedence and assign exactly one disposition,
citing the licensing section and provenance. If none
fits, assign
MODEL-GAPand trigger §1.16 — do not improvise.
The closed disposition set (§1.17)
| Disposition | When | Licensed by |
|---|---|---|
VALID | Violates a claimed property via an in-scope adversary and input. | §1.11, §1.7, §1.10 |
VALID-HARDENING | No §1.11 property violated, but a §1.14 misuse is easy enough to harden. Private; maintainer discretion; usually no CVE. | §1.14 |
OUT-OF-MODEL: trusted-input | Needs attacker control of a parameter marked trusted. | §1.7 |
OUT-OF-MODEL: adversary-not-in-scope | Needs an excluded attacker capability. | §1.10 |
OUT-OF-MODEL: unsupported-component | Lands in out-of-scope code. | §1.3 |
OUT-OF-MODEL: non-default-build | Requires a configuration explicitly marked dev-only, discouraged for the modeled use, or unsupported; non-default alone is insufficient. | §1.6 |
OUT-OF-MODEL: dependency-contract | Root cause is a dependency failing its own contract; usage conformant. Forward upstream, don't just close. | §1.9 |
BY-DESIGN: property-disclaimed | Concerns a property explicitly not provided. | §1.12 |
KNOWN-NON-FINDING | Matches a documented recurring false positive. | §1.15 |
MODEL-GAP | Fits none of the above → revise the model. | triggers §1.16 |
Guardrails
- Exactly one disposition. Apply §1.17's precedence when multiple
preconditions fail. Report
MODEL-GAPonly when the model is silent or genuinely contradictory, not merely because two predicates are true. MODEL-GAPis not "other". It means the model is incomplete: the correct response is to add the property to §1.11/§1.12 (viathreat-model-authoring), not to make an ad-hoc call on the report.- Closure constraint (all statuses), governed by the declared triage policy.
Any disposition that closes a report against the reporter (
OUT-OF-MODEL: *,BY-DESIGN: *,KNOWN-NON-FINDING) must be licensed by a documented or maintainer claim, with one policy-scoped exception for assumption:- An inferred licensing claim always escalates instead of closing.
- Read the header's triage policy. Under
strict(default) an assumption also escalates only. Underrelaxedan assumption may close the low-blast-radius routes —trusted-input,adversary-not-in-scope,unsupported-component,non-default-build, and a non-security-criticalproperty-disclaimed— as a provisional close: cite theQN, note it re-opens on challenge, and leave the §1.18 item open. - Security-critical floor (both policies). An assumption never licenses
KNOWN-NON-FINDING, aproperty-disclaimedwhose property issecurity-critical, ordependency-contract; those escalate unless documented / maintainer. - Silence floor (both policies, every provenance). A §1.12 disclaimer that
rests on the absence of a statement rather than on a stated limit never
closes a
security-criticalreport, aKNOWN-NON-FINDING, ordependency-contract— even tagged documented. Escalate instead. - An untiered §1.12 disclaimer is treated as
security-critical, not as the weaker case. Do not read a blank tier as permission. VALIDroutings are unaffected. A model markedacceptedwhile retaining inferred or assumption claims is invalid; return it for status/model correction.
- An escalated finding is not a
MODEL-GAP. Escalation means the route is right and the authority to use it is missing;MODEL-GAPmeans there is no route. Keep the disposition, mark itescalated, and name the §1.18 question that would unblock it. Do not feed it into the §1.16 revision loop — that loop is for genuine gaps, and filling it with escalations manufactures phantom model defects. - Cite provenance. When a disposition closes a report, cite the tagged claim (e.g., "not a bug — §1.12 disclaims this property (maintainer, 2025-03)", or "provisionally out of model — §1.7 (assumption, Q6) under relaxed policy; re-open on challenge").
Output
The disposition and its status, written as DISPOSITION (status) — for
example OUT-OF-MODEL: trusted-input (escalated). The status is one of:
| Status | Meaning |
|---|---|
closed | Licensed by a documented or maintainer claim. The report is answered. |
provisional | A relaxed-policy assumption close. Cite the QN; re-opens on challenge. |
escalated | The route is right but its license cannot close it. Name the blocking QN. |
VALID and MODEL-GAP are not closes and take no status qualifier.
Also report the citing section(s), the provenance of the licensing claim, and —
for MODEL-GAP or a two-way route — the model-revision or sharpening
recommendation to hand back to the orchestrator.
What ships with it
Read from the repository
Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.
Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most debug triage skills give
Counted across 1,020 of the 1,639 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-09-06
- Find root cause before attempting any fixin 134 of 1020, across 118 files
- Create a failing test case before implementing a fixin 109 of 1020, across 95 files
- Read error messages and stack traces completelyin 102 of 1020, across 88 files
- Reproduce the issue consistently before investigatingin 90 of 1020, across 77 files
- Make the smallest possible change to test a hypothesisin 90 of 1020, across 76 files
- Trace data flow backward to find the sourcein 84 of 1020, across 70 files
- Form a single hypothesis before testingin 78 of 1020, across 64 files
- Implement only one fix at a timein 76 of 1020, across 63 files
- Question the architecture if three fixes failin 73 of 1020, across 59 files
- Add diagnostic instrumentation at component boundariesin 68 of 1020, across 56 files
- Compare broken code against working examplesin 68 of 1020, across 57 files
- Write a regression test before applying the fixin 62 of 1020, across 55 files
Said here and by no other author read
- Assign exactly one disposition from the closed set
- Cite the licensing section and provenance for every disposition
- Use the threat model prose and sidecar for routing
- Recommend producing a model if none exists
- Escalate findings if the licensing claim is inferred
- Mark findings as MODEL-GAP if no route exists
Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once.