Secure

You are in AUTONOMOUS MODE. Do NOT ask questions. Scan, analyze, report, and route.

TARGET: $ARGUMENTS

If no arguments provided, perform a full security posture assessment of the project in the current working directory.

============================================================ PHASE 0: TECH STACK DETECTION

Auto-detect the project's technology stack by scanning for:

• package.json → Node.js / JavaScript / TypeScript
• pubspec.yaml → Flutter / Dart
• requirements.txt / pyproject.toml / Pipfile → Python
• Cargo.toml → Rust
• go.mod → Go
• pom.xml / build.gradle → Java / Kotlin
• Gemfile → Ruby
• docker-compose.yml / Dockerfile → Docker/containerized
• .env files, firebase.json, serverless.yml → infrastructure config

Record the detected stack. All subsequent checks adapt to the detected stack.

============================================================ PHASE 1: DEPENDENCY VULNERABILITY SCAN

Check for known vulnerabilities in project dependencies:

Node.js:

• Run npm audit --json or yarn audit --json or pnpm audit --json
• Parse results for Critical/High/Medium/Low counts

Python:

• Run pip-audit --format=json if available, else scan requirements against known CVE databases

Rust:

• Run cargo audit --json if available

Go:

• Run govulncheck ./... if available

For each vulnerability found, record:

• Package name and version
• CVE ID (if available)
• Severity (Critical/High/Medium/Low)
• Whether a fix version exists

============================================================ PHASE 2: CODE PATTERN ANALYSIS

Scan source code for dangerous patterns. Adapt patterns to detected stack:

INJECTION RISKS:

• String concatenation in SQL/database queries (not parameterized)
• Template literal injection in NoSQL queries
• eval(), exec(), Function() with dynamic input
• child_process.exec() / os.system() / subprocess.run(shell=True) with user input
• Regular expression denial of service (ReDoS) patterns

XSS VECTORS:

• innerHTML, dangerouslySetInnerHTML, v-html with unescaped input
• Template rendering without auto-escaping
• document.write() with dynamic content

AUTHENTICATION GAPS:

• Routes/endpoints without auth middleware
• Missing CSRF protection on state-changing endpoints
• Hardcoded JWT secrets or API keys
• Session configuration without secure flags

INSECURE CRYPTO:

• MD5 or SHA1 used for password hashing
• Weak random number generation (Math.random() for tokens)
• Hardcoded encryption keys or IVs

============================================================ PHASE 3: CONFIGURATION AUDIT

Scan project configuration for security issues:

EXPOSED SECRETS:

• .env files committed to git (check .gitignore)
• API keys, tokens, passwords in source code
• Private keys or certificates in the repository
• Database connection strings with credentials

DEBUG MODE:

• DEBUG=true or NODE_ENV=development in production configs
• Stack traces exposed in error responses
• Verbose logging of sensitive data
• Source maps exposed in production builds

CORS/HEADERS:

• Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * in production
• Missing security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options)
• Permissive cookie settings (missing Secure, HttpOnly, SameSite)

INFRASTRUCTURE:

• Docker containers running as root
• Exposed ports that should be internal
• Missing network segmentation in docker-compose
• Default credentials in database configs

============================================================ PHASE 4: DATA HANDLING REVIEW

Scan for PII and sensitive data handling issues:

PII EXPOSURE:

• User data (email, phone, name, address) logged or exposed in errors
• PII stored without encryption
• PII transmitted without TLS
• PII in URL parameters (visible in logs/history)

DATA VALIDATION:

• Missing input validation on API endpoints
• Missing output encoding/sanitization
• File upload without type/size validation
• Missing rate limiting on sensitive endpoints

============================================================ PHASE 5: RISK SCORING

Calculate a risk score (0-100, lower is better):

Scoring weights:

• Each Critical finding: +15 points
• Each High finding: +8 points
• Each Medium finding: +3 points
• Each Low finding: +1 point
• Cap at 100

Risk levels:

• 0-15: EXCELLENT — minimal risk
• 16-35: GOOD — minor issues, low priority
• 36-60: MODERATE — several issues need attention
• 61-80: HIGH — significant vulnerabilities present
• 81-100: CRITICAL — immediate action required

============================================================ PHASE 6: ROUTING

Based on findings, recommend specific sub-skills:

• Dependency vulns found → "Run /dependency-scan for auto-fix of vulnerable packages"
• Injection/XSS/CSRF found → "Run /pentest for detailed exploitation analysis"
• OWASP category matches → "Run /owasp for full OWASP Top 10 audit"
• PII handling issues → "Run /gdpr for compliance assessment"
• Encryption gaps → "Run /encryption to audit and implement proper encryption"
• Enterprise/compliance needs → "Run /soc2 for SOC2 readiness assessment"

============================================================ SELF-HEALING VALIDATION (max 2 iterations)

After producing the security analysis, validate thoroughness:

1. Verify every category in the audit was actually checked (not skipped).
2. Verify every finding has a specific file:line location.
3. Verify severity ratings are justified by impact assessment.
4. Verify no false positives by re-reading flagged code in context.

IF VALIDATION FAILS:

• Re-audit skipped categories or vague findings
• Verify or remove false positives
• Repeat up to 2 iterations

============================================================ OUTPUT

Security Posture Report

Project: [name] Stack: [detected technologies] Risk Score: [0-100] — [EXCELLENT/GOOD/MODERATE/HIGH/CRITICAL] Scan Date: [date]

Summary

Severity	Count	Auto-Fixable
Critical	N	N
High	N	N
Medium	N	N
Low	N	N

Critical Findings (fix immediately)

[List each Critical finding with file:line, description, and recommended fix]

High Findings (fix soon)

[List each High finding]

Medium Findings (plan to fix)

[List each Medium finding]

Low Findings (nice to have)

[List each Low finding]

Dependency Vulnerabilities

[Summary table of vulnerable packages]

Configuration Issues

[List of config problems found]

Recommended Next Steps

[Ordered list of sub-skills to run based on findings]

============================================================ NEXT STEPS

After reviewing the posture report:

• "Run /dependency-scan to auto-fix vulnerable packages."
• "Run /owasp for a comprehensive OWASP Top 10 audit."
• "Run /pentest for code-level penetration testing."
• "Run /gdpr to assess privacy compliance."
• "Run /encryption to audit encryption implementation."
• "Run /soc2 to evaluate SOC2 readiness."

============================================================ SELF-EVOLUTION TELEMETRY

After producing output, record execution metadata for the /evolve pipeline.

Check if a project memory directory exists:

• Look for the project path in ~/.claude/projects/
• If found, append to skill-telemetry.md in that memory directory

Entry format:

### /secure — {{YYYY-MM-DD}}
- Outcome: {{SUCCESS | PARTIAL | FAILED}}
- Self-healed: {{yes — what was healed | no}}
- Iterations used: {{N}} / {{N max}}
- Bottleneck: {{phase that struggled or "none"}}
- Suggestion: {{one-line improvement idea for /evolve, or "none"}}

Only log if the memory directory exists. Skip silently if not found. Keep entries concise — /evolve will parse these for skill improvement signals.

============================================================ DO NOT

• Do NOT modify any code in this skill — this is assessment only.
• Do NOT run actual network attacks or exploit vulnerabilities.
• Do NOT expose or log any secrets found — redact them in output.
• Do NOT skip any phase — run all checks even if early phases find issues.
• Do NOT report false positives as confirmed — mark confidence level.
• Do NOT install security scanning tools — use only what is already available.