Overview
This public intake copy packages plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/vulnerability-scanner from https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.
Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.
This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses the external_source block in metadata.json plus ORIGIN.md as the provenance anchor for review.
Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: 🔧 Runtime Scripts, 1. Security Expert Mindset, 2. OWASP Top 10:2025, 3. Supply Chain Security (A03), 4. Attack Surface Mapping, 5. Risk Prioritization.
When to Use This Skill
Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.
- This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview.
- Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: Advanced vulnerability analysis principles. OWASP 2025, Supply Chain Security, attack surface mapping, risk prioritization.
- Use when the operator should preserve upstream workflow detail instead of rewriting the process from scratch.
- Use when provenance needs to stay visible in the answer, PR, or review packet.
- Use when copied upstream references, examples, or scripts materially improve the answer.
- Use when the workflow should remain reviewable in the public intake repo before the private enhancer takes over.
Operating Table
| Situation | Start here | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| First-time use | metadata.json |
Confirms repository, branch, commit, and imported path through the external_source block before touching the copied workflow |
| Provenance review | ORIGIN.md |
Gives reviewers a plain-language audit trail for the imported source |
| Workflow execution | scripts/security_scan.py |
Starts with the smallest copied file that materially changes execution |
| Supporting context | checklists.md |
Adds the next most relevant copied source file without loading the entire package |
| Handoff decision | ## Related Skills |
Helps the operator switch to a stronger native skill when the task drifts |
Workflow
This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.
- Confirm the user goal, the scope of the imported workflow, and whether this skill is still the right router for the task.
- Read the overview and provenance files before loading any copied upstream support files.
- Load only the references, examples, prompts, or scripts that materially change the outcome for the current request.
- Execute the upstream workflow while keeping provenance and source boundaries explicit in the working notes.
- Validate the result against the upstream expectations and the evidence you can point to in the copied files.
- Escalate or hand off to a related skill when the work moves out of this imported workflow's center of gravity.
- Before merge or closure, record what was used, what changed, and what the reviewer still needs to verify.
Imported Workflow Notes
Imported: 🔧 Runtime Scripts
Execute for automated validation:
| Script | Purpose | Usage |
|---|---|---|
scripts/security_scan.py |
Validate security principles applied | python scripts/security_scan.py <project_path> |
Examples
Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly
Use @vulnerability-scanner to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.
Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.
Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review
Review @vulnerability-scanner against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.
Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.
Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution
Use @vulnerability-scanner for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.
Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.
Example 4: Build a reviewer packet
Review @vulnerability-scanner using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.
Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.
Best Practices
Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.
- What? - Clear vulnerability description
- Where? - Exact location (file, line, endpoint)
- Why? - Root cause explanation
- Impact? - Business consequence
- How to fix? - Specific remediation
- Severity - Criteria
- Critical - RCE, auth bypass, mass data exposure
Imported Operating Notes
Imported: 11. Reporting Principles
Finding Structure
Each finding should answer:
- What? - Clear vulnerability description
- Where? - Exact location (file, line, endpoint)
- Why? - Root cause explanation
- Impact? - Business consequence
- How to fix? - Specific remediation
Severity Classification
| Severity | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Critical | RCE, auth bypass, mass data exposure |
| High | Data exposure, privilege escalation |
| Medium | Limited scope, requires conditions |
| Low | Informational, best practice |
Remember: Vulnerability scanning finds issues. Expert thinking prioritizes what matters. Always ask: "What would an attacker do with this?"
Troubleshooting
Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically
Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/vulnerability-scanner, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all.
Solution: Re-open metadata.json, ORIGIN.md, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Check the external_source block first, then restate the provenance before continuing.
Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review
Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated SKILL.md, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task.
Solution: Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.
Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization
Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.
Related Skills
@00-andruia-consultant- Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.@00-andruia-consultant-v2- Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.@10-andruia-skill-smith- Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.@10-andruia-skill-smith-v2- Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
Additional Resources
Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.
| Resource family | What it gives the reviewer | Example path |
|---|---|---|
references |
copied reference notes, guides, or background material from upstream | references/n/a |
examples |
worked examples or reusable prompts copied from upstream | examples/n/a |
scripts |
upstream helper scripts that change execution or validation | scripts/security_scan.py |
agents |
routing or delegation notes that are genuinely part of the imported package | agents/n/a |
assets |
supporting assets or schemas copied from the source package | assets/n/a |
Imported Reference Notes
Imported: 📋 Reference Files
| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
| checklists.md | OWASP Top 10, Auth, API, Data protection checklists |
Imported: 1. Security Expert Mindset
Core Principles
| Principle | Application |
|---|---|
| Assume Breach | Design as if attacker already inside |
| Zero Trust | Never trust, always verify |
| Defense in Depth | Multiple layers, no single point |
| Least Privilege | Minimum required access only |
| Fail Secure | On error, deny access |
Threat Modeling Questions
Before scanning, ask:
- What are we protecting? (Assets)
- Who would attack? (Threat actors)
- How would they attack? (Attack vectors)
- What's the impact? (Business risk)
Imported: 2. OWASP Top 10:2025
Risk Categories
| Rank | Category | Think About |
|---|---|---|
| A01 | Broken Access Control | Who can access what? IDOR, SSRF |
| A02 | Security Misconfiguration | Defaults, headers, exposed services |
| A03 | Software Supply Chain 🆕 | Dependencies, CI/CD, build integrity |
| A04 | Cryptographic Failures | Weak crypto, exposed secrets |
| A05 | Injection | User input → system commands |
| A06 | Insecure Design | Flawed architecture |
| A07 | Authentication Failures | Session, credential management |
| A08 | Integrity Failures | Unsigned updates, tampered data |
| A09 | Logging & Alerting | Blind spots, no monitoring |
| A10 | Exceptional Conditions 🆕 | Error handling, fail-open states |
2025 Key Changes
2021 → 2025 Shifts:
├── SSRF merged into A01 (Access Control)
├── A02 elevated (Cloud/Container configs)
├── A03 NEW: Supply Chain (major focus)
├── A10 NEW: Exceptional Conditions
└── Focus shift: Root causes > Symptoms
Imported: 3. Supply Chain Security (A03)
Attack Surface
| Vector | Risk | Question to Ask |
|---|---|---|
| Dependencies | Malicious packages | Do we audit new deps? |
| Lock files | Integrity attacks | Are they committed? |
| Build pipeline | CI/CD compromise | Who can modify? |
| Registry | Typosquatting | Verified sources? |
Defense Principles
- Verify package integrity (checksums)
- Pin versions, audit updates
- Use private registries for critical deps
- Sign and verify artifacts
Imported: 4. Attack Surface Mapping
What to Map
| Category | Elements |
|---|---|
| Entry Points | APIs, forms, file uploads |
| Data Flows | Input → Process → Output |
| Trust Boundaries | Where auth/authz checked |
| Assets | Secrets, PII, business data |
Prioritization Matrix
Risk = Likelihood × Impact
High Impact + High Likelihood → CRITICAL
High Impact + Low Likelihood → HIGH
Low Impact + High Likelihood → MEDIUM
Low Impact + Low Likelihood → LOW
Imported: 5. Risk Prioritization
CVSS + Context
| Factor | Weight | Question |
|---|---|---|
| CVSS Score | Base severity | How severe is the vuln? |
| EPSS Score | Exploit likelihood | Is it being exploited? |
| Asset Value | Business context | What's at risk? |
| Exposure | Attack surface | Internet-facing? |
Prioritization Decision Tree
Is it actively exploited (EPSS >0.5)?
├── YES → CRITICAL: Immediate action
└── NO → Check CVSS
├── CVSS ≥9.0 → HIGH
├── CVSS 7.0-8.9 → Consider asset value
└── CVSS <7.0 → Schedule for later
Imported: 6. Exceptional Conditions (A10 - New)
Fail-Open vs Fail-Closed
| Scenario | Fail-Open (BAD) | Fail-Closed (GOOD) |
|---|---|---|
| Auth error | Allow access | Deny access |
| Parsing fails | Accept input | Reject input |
| Timeout | Retry forever | Limit + abort |
What to Check
- Exception handlers that catch-all and ignore
- Missing error handling on security operations
- Race conditions in auth/authz
- Resource exhaustion scenarios
Imported: 7. Scanning Methodology
Phase-Based Approach
1. RECONNAISSANCE
└── Understand the target
├── Technology stack
├── Entry points
└── Data flows
2. DISCOVERY
└── Identify potential issues
├── Configuration review
├── Dependency analysis
└── Code pattern search
3. ANALYSIS
└── Validate and prioritize
├── False positive elimination
├── Risk scoring
└── Attack chain mapping
4. REPORTING
└── Actionable findings
├── Clear reproduction steps
├── Business impact
└── Remediation guidance
Imported: 8. Code Pattern Analysis
High-Risk Patterns
| Pattern | Risk | Look For |
|---|---|---|
| String concat in queries | Injection | "SELECT * FROM " + user_input |
| Dynamic code execution | RCE | eval(), exec(), Function() |
| Unsafe deserialization | RCE | pickle.loads(), unserialize() |
| Path manipulation | Traversal | User input in file paths |
| Disabled security | Various | verify=False, --insecure |
Secret Patterns
| Type | Indicators |
|---|---|
| API Keys | api_key, apikey, high entropy |
| Tokens | token, bearer, jwt |
| Credentials | password, secret, key |
| Cloud | AWS_, AZURE_, GCP_ prefixes |
Imported: 9. Cloud Security Considerations
Shared Responsibility
| Layer | You Own | Provider Owns |
|---|---|---|
| Data | ✅ | ❌ |
| Application | ✅ | ❌ |
| OS/Runtime | Depends | Depends |
| Infrastructure | ❌ | ✅ |
Cloud-Specific Checks
- IAM: Least privilege applied?
- Storage: Public buckets?
- Network: Security groups tightened?
- Secrets: Using secrets manager?
Imported: 10. Anti-Patterns
| ❌ Don't | ✅ Do |
|---|---|
| Scan without understanding | Map attack surface first |
| Alert on every CVE | Prioritize by exploitability + asset |
| Ignore false positives | Maintain verified baseline |
| Fix symptoms only | Address root causes |
| Scan once before deploy | Continuous scanning |
| Trust third-party deps blindly | Verify integrity, audit code |
Imported: Limitations
- Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
- Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
- Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.