security-regression-contract-audit

Audit C# security regression suites to separate genuine vulnerabilities from placeholder tests.

1|Updated Dec 23, 2025
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/jonnymuir/Umbraco.Prism --skill security-regression-contract-audit
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: security-regression-contract-audit
Source: https://github.com/jonnymuir/Umbraco.Prism/tree/main/.claude/skills/security-regression-contract-audit
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/jonnymuir/Umbraco.Prism --skill security-regression-contract-audit

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

This skill resolves the noise in security regression suites where failing tests often mix genuine product vulnerabilities with stale, non-functional placeholder tests.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Boundary Tracing: Maps user-controlled inputs from entry points to sensitive sinks like redirect URIs.
  • Contract Separation: Distinguishes between meaningful behavioral assertions and implementation-coupled checks.
  • Use Case: When a security test suite fails, use this skill to identify which failures represent actual open-redirect or injection risks versus those that are merely testing debug-mode helpers or hardcoded false values.

Quick Start

Analyze the current security regression test suite to identify and replace placeholder assertions with behavioral requirements.

Frequently Asked Questions about security-regression-contract-audit

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

FAQPage Schema
How do I audit security regression tests to isolate real vulnerabilities?

Audit security regression tests by separating genuine product vulnerabilities from stale placeholder tests. This isolates actual open-redirect or injection risks from tests merely checking debug-mode helpers or hardcoded false values.

Why do my C# security test suites fail with mixed vulnerability and placeholder results?

Security test suites fail with mixed results when behavioral assertions are coupled with implementation details. Contract separation distinguishes meaningful runtime verification of authentication properties from non-functional placeholder tests.

What is the best way to trace user-controlled inputs to redirect URIs during a security audit?

The best way to trace user-controlled inputs to redirect URIs is boundary tracing. This maps inputs from entry points directly to sensitive sinks, ensuring test coverage focuses on executable behavioral contracts for redirect safety.

Can I use this security audit approach for C# web applications requiring runtime verification of authentication properties?

Yes, this approach applies specifically to C# web applications where redirect safety and authentication properties require robust runtime verification. It ensures test coverage focuses on executable behavioral contracts rather than internal implementation details.

How do I replace stale placeholder assertions with executable behavioral requirements in a security test suite?

Replace stale placeholder assertions by analyzing the current security regression test suite. Contract separation identifies non-functional placeholder tests and substitutes them with executable behavioral requirements for genuine vulnerabilities.

When should I not use implementation-coupled checks for testing redirect safety in C#?

You should not use implementation-coupled checks when testing redirect safety because they test debug-only logic or hardcoded false values. Focus test coverage on executable behavioral contracts to verify actual open-redirect risks.