owasp-llm-top10-review

Assess LLM applications against the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025.

3|Updated Feb 18, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/gener8v/gener8v.claude-skills --skill owasp-llm-top10-review-gener8v
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent▼
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: owasp-llm-top10-review
Source: https://github.com/gener8v/gener8v.claude-skills/tree/main/skills/owasp-llm-top10-review
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/gener8v/gener8v.claude-skills --skill owasp-llm-top10-review-gener8v

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve? Generic web security reviews miss risks specific to systems that call a model: prompt injection through retrieved content, sensitive data disclosure, excessive agency, system-prompt leakage, vector weaknesses, and unbounded inference spend. This Skill performs a systematic, category-by-category assessment of any LLM-shaped application against the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Full LLM01–LLM10 Coverage: Evaluates prompt injection (direct and indirect), sensitive information disclosure, supply chain, data poisoning, output handling, excessive agency, system prompt leakage, vector and embedding weaknesses, misinformation, and unbounded consumption. - Evidence-Based Findings: Traces prompt assembly, retrieval pipelines, output handling, agency surfaces, and cost enforcement in code, producing numbered SEC-XXX findings with severity, attack scenarios, and recommendations. - Structured Assessment Report: Writes a standardized report to .gener8v/reviews/[slug]-owasp-llm-top10-assessment.md with coverage summary, category assessments, new findings, and positive controls. - Use Case: Before launching a RAG chatbot, run the assessment to discover that retrieved web content is substituted into prompts without delimiting (indirect injection) and that no per-tenant token ceiling exists (denial-of-wallet risk). ## Quick Start Run the OWASP LLM Top 10 review on the support-search system to check whether retrieved documents can smuggle instructions into the model.

Frequently Asked Questions about owasp-llm-top10-review

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I assess an LLM application against the OWASP LLM Top 10?▼

Run a category-by-category review covering LLM01 through LLM10: trace how user input and retrieved content enter prompts, inspect output handling and agency surfaces, check API schemas for prompt leakage, and verify cost ceilings. Findings are numbered SEC-XXX with severity and attack scenarios.

What is the difference between the OWASP web Top 10 and the OWASP LLM Top 10 review?▼

The web OWASP Top 10 covers the HTTP and infrastructure surface, while the LLM Top 10 covers model-specific risks like prompt injection, vector weaknesses, and unbounded consumption. For an LLM application, both assessments should run alongside each other.

Does this review apply to RAG pipelines and agentic systems?▼

Yes, it covers chat apps, RAG pipelines, agentic systems, multi-stage orchestration, LLM-as-judge, and tool-using agents. Retrieval paths are assessed for indirect injection and vector weaknesses, and tool-using agency re-rates output handling risks higher.

When should I not use the OWASP LLM Top 10 review?▼

Do not use it for systems that make no model calls; use the web OWASP Top 10 review instead. It also does not replace per-ticket security reviews, which assess one delivered ticket rather than the whole model surface.

Why is indirect prompt injection rated higher severity than direct injection?▼

Indirect injection places adversarial instructions inside retrieved web pages or documents fed to the model as trusted context, so the attacker need not be a user. Direct injection typically only harms the attacker's own session, making it lower impact.

What happens if the system has no cost tracking or budget enforcement?▼

The absence of cost enforcement is itself an LLM10 Unbounded Consumption finding, not a not-applicable result. Severity is rated by what a caller can make the system spend, especially when endpoints are public or unauthenticated.