validation

Validates candidate security findings using PoCs, debugger traces, and static code analysis.

Updated May 4, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/antstanley/skills --skill validation-antstanley
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: validation
Source: https://github.com/antstanley/skills/tree/main/plugins/security/skills/validation
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/antstanley/skills --skill validation-antstanley

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes references (resource) components.

What problem does it solve? Security scans produce candidate findings that may be false positives or unproven claims. This Skill determines whether each candidate vulnerability is real by attempting reproduction or rigorous code tracing, so teams only act on evidence-backed findings. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Evidence-Based Validation: Attempts crashing PoCs, valgrind/ASan runs, debugger traces, focused tests, and realistic interface reproduction before falling back to static source-to-sink tracing. - Instance-Preserving Coverage: Validates every candidate instance independently, preserving ledger rows with explicit reportable, suppressed, not_applicable, or deferred dispositions. - Use Case: After a repository-wide security scan produces a candidate ledger of suspected SQL injection and path traversal findings, run this Skill to reproduce each one, suppress false positives with exact counterevidence, and emit a validation closure table with confidence levels. ## Quick Start Ask the AI to validate the candidate security findings in the scan's candidate ledger and produce an evidence-backed disposition for each one.

Frequently Asked Questions about validation

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

FAQPage Schema
How do I validate whether a security finding is a real vulnerability?

Build a short rubric, identify the attacker input, vulnerable sink, and preconditions, then attempt the strongest feasible proof: a crashing PoC, valgrind or ASan run, debugger trace, focused test, or realistic interface reproduction. Fall back to static source-to-sink tracing only when dynamic validation is blocked.

How to reproduce a memory corruption bug for validation?

Compile a debug variant of the project and produce a crashing proof of concept with bounded effort. If it does not immediately reproduce, run valgrind or ASan, or capture a non-interactive gdb or lldb trace showing the source-to-sink path.

When should static code analysis replace dynamic vulnerability reproduction?

Use static tracing when runtime reproduction needs unavailable internal services, secrets, cloud accounts, or disproportionate setup. Trace the source, closest control, sink, reachability, and counterevidence, and record the exact proof gap rather than treating missing setup as suppression evidence.

Can this validation skill handle multiple candidate findings at once?

Yes. It preserves every candidate instance independently, validating a representative exploit path once and then checking each sibling's source, control, sink, and impact tuple. Each instance gets its own disposition of reportable, suppressed, not_applicable, or deferred.

What are the limitations of security finding validation without a working build?

Build or setup failures are not counterevidence. The Skill records what blocked runtime proof, then relies on static traces plus existing tests and deploy or config evidence, lowering confidence or marking the row deferred instead of suppressing it.