security-and-hardening

Map trust boundaries and attacker paths in software changes.

Updated Apr 27, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/Handy369/passto-pi-frame --skill security-and-hardening-handy369
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: security-and-hardening
Source: https://github.com/Handy369/passto-pi-frame/tree/main/skills/security-and-hardening
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/Handy369/passto-pi-frame --skill security-and-hardening-handy369

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

Security work often ships after “it works” but without explicitly mapping who is trusted, what is untrusted, and how abuse paths are blocked, which leaves gaps around auth, secrets, sessions, PII, uploads, and third-party callbacks.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Trust boundary & attacker path mapping: Produce a clear boundary listing showing who controls inputs, who controls authority, and what must be hidden or protected.
  • Abuse/misuse path identification: Enumerate likely failure modes such as authorization bypass, injection, XSS, secret leakage, and forged webhook or upload abuse.
  • Security implementation or findings with evidence: Tie mitigations directly to the boundary and require verification evidence (tests, config checks, human review) so “secure by default” is actually demonstrated.

Quick Start

Ask the agent to apply security-and-hardening to your change and first output the trust boundary and key abuse paths before proposing any auth, secret, validation, or callback/upload defenses.

Frequently Asked Questions about security-and-hardening

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

FAQPage Schema
How do I map trust boundaries and identify abuse paths in software changes?

To map trust boundaries, explicitly identify who controls untrusted inputs and authority, then enumerate abuse paths like authorization bypass, injection, and forged webhooks to apply targeted mitigations.

What is the best way to secure webhook callbacks and prevent forged requests?

Securing webhook callbacks requires treating third-party callbacks as untrusted boundaries, mapping attacker paths for forged requests, and implementing signature verification evidence to prove defenses are effective.

How do I harden authentication and authorization flows against bypass attacks?

Harden authentication and authorization by mapping trust boundaries around session tokens and secrets, enumerating abuse paths for bypass, and tying boundary-aligned mitigations to verification evidence like tests.

How do I protect sensitive data flows like PII and file uploads from injection attacks?

Protect sensitive PII and file upload data flows by mapping trust boundaries, enumerating abuse paths for injection or upload abuse, and applying boundary-aligned mitigations with verification evidence.

Does this security hardening approach work for third-party integrations and untrusted user input?

Yes, this approach applies to scenarios involving untrusted user input and third-party callbacks by requiring explicit boundary mapping, abuse enumeration, and verification evidence that demonstrates effective defenses.

Why should I enumerate abuse paths before implementing auth, secret, or validation defenses?

Enumerating abuse paths first ensures your auth, secret validation, and callback defenses are directly aligned with mapped trust boundaries, providing verification evidence that the mitigations actually block attacks.