CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

security-review

When the user needs a security assessment — threat modeling, vulnerability review, auth flow audit, dependency scanning, or says "is this secure", "review for vulnerabilities", "threat model", "security audit", "pen test prep".

83

Quality

80%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

Pending

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Risky

Do not use without reviewing

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/security-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Security Review

When to Use

  • The user wants a security audit of their application, infrastructure, or specific feature
  • They need a threat model before launching or a penetration test preparation review
  • They have a dependency vulnerability alert and need remediation guidance
  • They are handling sensitive data (PII, payment, health) and need verification
  • Code audit, secrets detection, or compliance assessment is requested

Context Required

From startup-context: tech stack, deployment environment, compliance requirements, data types. Also ask:

  • Scope — Full app, feature, auth system, single PR, infrastructure, or cloud environment
  • Data types — PII, payment, health, credentials, or other sensitive data handled
  • Compliance requirements — SOC 2, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, GDPR, ISO 27001
  • Authorization — Confirm written authorization exists before any active testing

Workflow

Follow a five-phase methodology. Automated scanning precedes manual review. Authorization verification is mandatory before active testing.

  1. Scope definition — Establish attack surface boundaries. Identify all components, data flows, and trust boundaries. Confirm authorization. Define in-scope and out-of-scope.
  2. Automated scanning — Execute tooling before manual review:
    • SAST: semgrep --config=auto across the codebase
    • Dependency audit: npm audit / pip-audit / govulncheck / trivy fs .
    • Secrets detection: Scan for hardcoded credentials, API keys, tokens in source
    • Container scanning: trivy image for containerized deployments
    • Record all automated findings for validation in the next phase.
  3. Manual code review — Conduct contextual analysis that automated tools miss:
    • Authentication and authorization flow tracing end-to-end
    • Business logic vulnerabilities (price manipulation, race conditions, privilege escalation)
    • Data flow analysis for sensitive information (where does PII enter, transit, and persist?)
    • STRIDE threat modeling against each component and data flow
  4. Validation and classification — Test findings and assign severity:
    • Validate automated findings to eliminate false positives
    • Assign CVSS v3.1 scores; assess exploitability in context
    • Classify by business impact, not just technical severity
  5. Reporting — Document vulnerabilities with precise locations, business impact, and corrective actions. Deliver a prioritized remediation roadmap.

Output Format

# Security Review: [Scope Description]

## Executive Summary
Overall risk posture (Critical / High / Medium / Low), top findings count, and business impact summary.

## Threat Model (STRIDE)
| Threat | Category | Asset | Impact | Likelihood | Risk |

## Findings
### Critical / High / Medium / Low
- **[SEC-N] Title** — CVSS X.X — file:line — description, business impact, remediation with code example

## Auth Flow Assessment
End-to-end trace of authentication and authorization with findings.

## Dependency Vulnerabilities
| Package | Current Version | CVSS | Fix Version | Exploitable in Context? |

## Remediation Roadmap
Prioritized action list with timelines.

Frameworks & Best Practices

STRIDE Threat Modeling

Apply to every component and data flow:

  • Spoofing — Can attackers forge tokens or impersonate users? Are API keys rotatable?
  • Tampering — Can requests be modified in transit? Are webhooks signed? Is data integrity verified?
  • Repudiation — Are critical actions logged? Are logs tamper-evident?
  • Information Disclosure — Stack traces in error responses? PII encrypted at rest and in transit?
  • Denial of Service — Rate limits in place? Can one user exhaust resources for all?
  • Elevation of Privilege — Can regular users access admin functions? Are role checks server-side?

OWASP Top 10 Checks

  1. Injection — Parameterize SQL/NoSQL; check OS commands, SSTI, LDAP
  2. Broken Auth — argon2id/bcrypt, session timeout, rate limiting on login
  3. Data Exposure — TLS 1.2+, PII encrypted at rest, HSTS headers
  4. XXE — Disable DTD processing, prefer JSON over XML
  5. Access Control — Server-side authz on every endpoint, no IDOR, CORS whitelist
  6. Misconfig — Debug mode off, default credentials removed, security headers present
  7. XSS — Output encoding, Content Security Policy, HTTP-only cookies
  8. Deserialization — Validate schema, prefer JSON, reject untrusted serialized objects
  9. Vulnerable Depsnpm audit, pip-audit, trivy, govulncheck
  10. Logging — Auth events, admin actions, access violations logged with alerts

CVSS v3.1 Scoring Guide

  • Critical (9.0-10.0): RCE, auth bypass, full data breach, complete system compromise
  • High (7.0-8.9): Privilege escalation, significant data exposure, SSRF to internal services
  • Medium (4.0-6.9): Stored XSS, CSRF, limited IDOR, information disclosure
  • Low (0.1-3.9): Missing security headers, minor info disclosure, verbose errors

Auth Flow Checklist

  • Passwords: argon2id or bcrypt (cost >= 10)
  • JWT: 15-min access tokens, 7-day refresh tokens rotated on use
  • Rate limiting: 5 attempts / 15 min on auth endpoints
  • Sessions invalidated on password change
  • OAuth state parameter validated, scoped API keys
  • MFA enforced for admin accounts
  • Password reset tokens are single-use and time-limited

Scanning Tools

  • SAST: semgrep --config=auto (all stacks), bandit (Python), gosec (Go), eslint-plugin-security (Node)
  • Dependencies: npm audit / pip-audit / govulncheck / trivy fs .
  • Containers: trivy image

Mandatory Constraints

  • Never test production without explicit written authorization
  • Never exploit beyond proof-of-concept demonstration
  • Always sequence automated scanning before manual review

Remediation Priority

  1. Actively exploitable + critical data — immediately
  2. Auth/authz bypass — 24 hours
  3. Injection — 48 hours
  4. Data exposure / critical CVEs — 1 week
  5. Config hardening — 2 weeks
  6. Defense-in-depth — next sprint

Related Skills

  • code-review — chain when findings require code-level fixes and review
  • architecture-design — chain when findings reveal architectural security flaws
  • soc2-prep — chain when review is part of compliance preparation

Examples

Example prompt: "Review the security of our user authentication system. We use JWT with Express."

Good output snippet:

# Security Review: JWT Authentication System

## Executive Summary
Risk posture: **Critical**. Hardcoded JWT secret and non-expiring tokens.

## Findings
### Critical (CVSS 9.8)
- **[SEC-1] Hardcoded JWT secret** — auth/config.js:3 — Secret is
  "supersecret123". Attacker can forge any token.
  **Fix:** Move to env var, generate with `openssl rand -base64 64`.

### Critical (CVSS 9.1)
- **[SEC-2] Tokens never expire** — auth/jwt.js:12 — No `expiresIn`.
  **Fix:** Set `expiresIn: '15m'`, implement refresh token rotation.
Repository
shawnpang/startup-founder-skills
Last updated
Created

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.