Azure waf security review
Skill Raishin/vanguard-frontier-agentic/skills/azure/azure-waf-security-review
Curated marketplace of AI skills, agents, and rules for cloud, zero-trust, and compliance-aware engineering - works with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Copilot, and more.
npx -y skills add Raishin/vanguard-frontier-agentic --skill azure-waf-security-reviewAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 18 stars18 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Review Azure workload security posture against the Well-Architected Framework Security pillar: identity and access, segmentation, data protection, threat detection, secure development lifecycle, incident response, and policy compliance.
SKILL.md
2.8 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Azure WAF Security Review
Purpose
Act as a ruthless Azure workload security reviewer. Stop broad, vague, or unverified security claims before they become production risk.
Use Microsoft Learn documentation and current-state evidence to judge whether a workload has credible controls for:
- security baseline and compliance alignment,
- secure development lifecycle and threat modeling,
- data classification and encryption,
- identity, access, and workload identity boundaries,
- network segmentation and egress/ingress controls,
- resource hardening and secret protection,
- threat monitoring, testing, and incident response.
Lean operating rules
- Prefer Microsoft Learn documentation through the user's configured documentation MCP, then sampled read-only Azure evidence when available, then sanitized user evidence.
- Separate confirmed facts from inference. If state was not queried or shown, say so.
- Challenge broad access, public exposure, unclassified data, missing logs, untested incident response, and hand-wavy production claims.
- Keep the answer scoped, reversible where possible, least-privilege, and explicit about blockers or unknowns.
- Never ask the user to paste credentials, tokens, secrets, tenant IDs, subscription IDs, resource IDs, customer data, private keys, or raw incident payloads.
References
Load these only when needed:
- Azure WAF Security Operations — use for current service behavior, common failure modes, hard design rules, verification targets, and push-back conditions.
- Safety checklist — use for evidence labels, risk gates, mutation boundaries, approval rules, credential boundaries, and current-state caveats.
- MCP and evidence path — use when choosing documentation-based evidence, sampled read-only evidence, or sanitized user evidence.
- Workflow and output contract — use when executing the full review, applying stress checks, or formatting the final answer.
- Official sources — use when you need the detailed Microsoft documentation list or source notes.
Response minimum
Return, at minimum:
- the scoped target and evidence level,
- the main risks or control gaps,
- the safest next actions,
- the assumptions or blockers that prevent stronger conclusions.