CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

defense-in-depth-validation

Validate at every layer data passes through to make bugs impossible. Use when invalid data causes failures deep in execution, requiring validation at multiple system layers.

64

Quality

76%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/defense-in-depth-validation/skills/defense-in-depth-validation/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Defense-in-Depth Validation

Overview

When you fix a bug caused by invalid data, adding validation at one place feels sufficient. But that single check can be bypassed by different code paths, refactoring, or mocks.

Core principle: Validate at EVERY layer data passes through. Make the bug structurally impossible.

Why Multiple Layers

Single validation: "We fixed the bug" Multiple layers: "We made the bug impossible"

Different layers catch different cases:

  • Entry validation catches most bugs
  • Business logic catches edge cases
  • Environment guards prevent context-specific dangers
  • Debug logging helps when other layers fail

The Four Layers

Layer 1: Entry Point Validation

Purpose: Reject obviously invalid input at API boundary

function createProject(name: string, workingDirectory: string) {
  if (!workingDirectory || workingDirectory.trim() === '') {
    throw new Error('workingDirectory cannot be empty');
  }
  if (!existsSync(workingDirectory)) {
    throw new Error(`workingDirectory does not exist: ${workingDirectory}`);
  }
  if (!statSync(workingDirectory).isDirectory()) {
    throw new Error(`workingDirectory is not a directory: ${workingDirectory}`);
  }
  // ... proceed
}

Layer 2: Business Logic Validation

Purpose: Ensure data makes sense for this operation

function initializeWorkspace(projectDir: string, sessionId: string) {
  if (!projectDir) {
    throw new Error('projectDir required for workspace initialization');
  }
  // ... proceed
}

Layer 3: Environment Guards

Purpose: Prevent dangerous operations in specific contexts

async function gitInit(directory: string) {
  // In tests, refuse git init outside temp directories
  if (process.env.NODE_ENV === 'test') {
    const normalized = normalize(resolve(directory));
    const tmpDir = normalize(resolve(tmpdir()));

    if (!normalized.startsWith(tmpDir)) {
      throw new Error(
        `Refusing git init outside temp dir during tests: ${directory}`
      );
    }
  }
  // ... proceed
}

Layer 4: Debug Instrumentation

Purpose: Capture context for forensics

async function gitInit(directory: string) {
  const stack = new Error().stack;
  logger.debug('About to git init', {
    directory,
    cwd: process.cwd(),
    stack,
  });
  // ... proceed
}

Applying the Pattern

When you find a bug:

  1. Trace the data flow - Where does bad value originate? Where used?
  2. Map all checkpoints - List every point data passes through
  3. Add validation at each layer - Entry, business, environment, debug
  4. Test each layer - Try to bypass layer 1, verify layer 2 catches it

Example from Session

Bug: Empty projectDir caused git init in source code

Data flow:

  1. Test setup → empty string
  2. Project.create(name, '')
  3. WorkspaceManager.createWorkspace('')
  4. git init runs in process.cwd()

Four layers added:

  • Layer 1: Project.create() validates not empty/exists/writable
  • Layer 2: WorkspaceManager validates projectDir not empty
  • Layer 3: WorktreeManager refuses git init outside tmpdir in tests
  • Layer 4: Stack trace logging before git init

Result: All 1847 tests passed, bug impossible to reproduce

Key Insight

All four layers were necessary. During testing, each layer caught bugs the others missed:

  • Different code paths bypassed entry validation
  • Mocks bypassed business logic checks
  • Edge cases on different platforms needed environment guards
  • Debug logging identified structural misuse

Don't stop at one validation point. Add checks at every layer.

Security defense-in-depth

The same layered approach is the standard pattern for security controls: trust is never granted at a single point, so that a bug or bypass in any one layer cannot by itself compromise the system. Each request is checked independently at the edge, in the handler, and at the data layer.

  • Layer 1 (edge): rate-limit and filter at the edge (CDN/WAF such as Cloudflare or AWS WAF) so abusive traffic never reaches the origin.
  • Layer 2 (handler): re-derive authorization server-side from the session — never trust a client-supplied claim like a userId in the body.
  • Layer 3 (data): enforce the ownership invariant in the database query so that even a handler bug cannot cross tenant boundaries.
// Layer 2 — re-derive authz server-side, never trust client claims
app.put('/docs/:id', async (req, res) => {
  const user = await verifySession(req.cookies.session); // throws if invalid
  // Layer 3 — DB clause re-checks ownership; a handler bug still can't cross tenants
  const updated = await db.query(
    'UPDATE docs SET title = $1 WHERE id = $2 AND owner_id = $3 RETURNING *',
    [req.body.title, req.params.id, user.id]
  );
  if (!updated.rowCount) return res.status(403).send('Not allowed');
  res.json(updated.rows[0]);
});

Defense in depth means no single layer's failure is sufficient to compromise the system.

Repository
secondsky/claude-skills
Last updated
First committed

Also appears in

mrgoonie/claudekit-skills
Stale

last in sync Jan 29, 2026

Renamed to: Defense-in-Depth Validation

einverne/dotfiles
Stale

last in sync Jan 29, 2026

Renamed to: Defense-in-Depth Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.