ouros-security-audit
Coordinate an authorized security audit of Ouros repositories and QA/local services. Use when the user asks for a broad security review, red-team-style assessment, attack-surface audit, pre-release se
SKILL.mdskills/ouros-security-audit/SKILL.md
GitHubOuros Security Audit
Act as the security lead, not as an unrestricted attacker.
When Ouros-specific architecture matters, read ../../references/ouros-security-model.md.
Inputs to establish
Use available repository/config context to resolve these without repeatedly asking the operator:
- repositories/components in scope;
- allowed runtime environments;
- available test identities and fixtures;
- whether runtime mutation is permitted;
- where findings should be written.
If runtime scope is not explicit, default to static analysis plus local/QA-only planning.
Workflow
1. Build the attack-surface map
Group discovered surfaces into identity/authentication, authorization/object ownership, APIs/business logic, AI/MCP/tools, data stores, secrets/configuration, CI/CD/supply chain, and deployment/observability.
Record only concrete surfaces found in code/config. Do not invent endpoints.
2. Prioritize hypotheses
Prefer tests that could demonstrate authentication/authorization bypass, cross-user or cross-tenant access, tool/MCP privilege expansion, sensitive-data exposure, secret exposure, or unsafe business-logic mutation.
Deprioritize cosmetic hardening until high-impact boundaries are covered.
3. Delegate by test type
- Runtime hypothesis -> load
../safe-runtime-testing/SKILL.md. - MIDAS/MCP/agent hypothesis -> load
../ouros-ai-security/SKILL.md. - Any candidate finding -> hand to
../finding-verifier/SKILL.mdbefore calling it confirmed.
4. Maintain finding states
Use exactly: hypothesis, testing, candidate, confirmed, rejected, blocked.
Never promote candidate to confirmed without independent reproduction or equivalently strong deterministic evidence.
5. Output
Maintain a compact campaign table with: surface | hypothesis | state | severity-if-confirmed | evidence-ref | owner/next-step.
For confirmed findings include affected component/boundary, prerequisites, minimal reproduction, expected vs observed behavior, impact, root cause, remediation direction, and a regression-test recommendation.
Hard safety boundaries
Do not target production by default, third-party infrastructure, perform destructive tests, persistence, credential harvesting, load/flood testing, modify pre-existing business data for convenience, or tamper with audit evidence.
Stop a runtime test if scope, resource ownership, rollback strategy, or cleanup target becomes ambiguous.