commit-security-scan

Analyze code changes for security vulnerabilities using LLM reasoning and threat model patterns. Use for PR reviews, pre-commit checks, or branch comparisons.

factory-ai/skills3 installsMITSynced Aug 25

Works with

Claude CodeCursorCodex CLIGitHub CopilotGemini CLI
---
name: commit-security-scan
description: Analyze code changes for security vulnerabilities using LLM reasoning and threat model patterns. Use for PR reviews, pre-commit checks, or branch comparisons.
license: MIT
---

# Commit Security Scan

Analyze code changes (commits, PRs, diffs) using LLM-powered reasoning to detect security vulnerabilities. This skill reads code directly and applies patterns from the repository's threat model to identify issues across all STRIDE categories.

## When to Use This Skill

- **PR review** - Automated security scan on pull requests
- **Pre-commit check** - Scan staged changes before committing
- **Branch comparison** - Review security of feature branch changes
- **Code review assistance** - Help reviewers spot security issues

## Prerequisites

This skill requires:

1. **Threat model** - `.factory/threat-model.md` must exist
2. **Security config** - `.factory/security-config.json` for severity thresholds

**IMPORTANT: If these files don't exist, you MUST generate them first before proceeding with the security scan.**

To generate the prerequisites:

1. Tell the user: "The threat model doesn't exist yet. I'll generate it first before scanning."
2. Run the `threat-model-generation` skill to create both files
3. Once complete, continue with the security scan

Do NOT ask the user to run the skill manually - just do it automatically as part of this workflow.

## Inputs

The skill determines what to scan from the user's request:

| Scan Type         | How to Specify             | Example                                      |
| ----------------- | -------------------------- | -------------------------------------------- |
| PR                | "Scan PR #123"             | `Scan PR #456 for security vulnerabilities`  |
| Commit range      | "Scan commits X..Y"        | `Scan commits abc123..def456`                |
| Single commit     | "Scan commit X"            | `Scan commit abc123`                         |
| Staged changes    | "Scan staged changes"      | `Scan my staged changes for security issues` |
| Uncommitted       | "Scan uncommitted changes" | `Scan working directory changes`             |
| Branch comparison | "Scan from X to Y"         | `Scan changes from main to feature-branch`   |
| Last N commits    | "Scan last N commits"      | `Scan the last 3 commits`                    |

If no scope is specified, prompt the user for clarification.

## Instructions

Follow these steps in order:

### Step 1: Verify Prerequisites (Auto-Generate if Missing)

Try to read these files:

- `.factory/threat-model.md`
- `.factory/security-config.json`

**If either file is missing or cannot be read:**

1. Inform the user: "The security threat model doesn't exist yet. I'll generate it first - this may take a minute."
2. Invoke the `threat-model-generation` skill to analyze the repository and create both files
3. Once generation completes, continue with Step 2

This ensures the security scan always has the threat model context it needs for accurate analysis.

### Step 2: Get Changed Files

Based on the user's request, get the list of changed files and their diffs using git:

- For PRs: use `gh pr diff`
- For commits/ranges: use `git diff` or `git show`
- For staged changes: use `git diff --cached`

Read the full content of each changed file for context.

### Step 3: Load Threat Model

Read `.factory/threat-model.md` and `.factory/security-config.json` to understand:

- The system's architecture and trust boundaries
- Known vulnerability patterns for this codebase
- Severity thresholds for findings

### Step 4: Analyze for Vulnerabilities

For each changed file, systematically check for STRIDE threats:

#### S - Spoofing Identity

- Missing or weak authentication checks
- Session handling vulnerabilities
- Token/credential exposure in code
- Insecure cookie settings

#### T - Tampering with Data

- **SQL Injection**: String concatenation/interpolation in SQL queries
- **Command Injection**: User input in shell commands, `eval()`, `exec()`
- **XSS**: Unescaped user input in HTML/templates
- **Mass Assignment**: Blind assignment from request to model
- **Path Traversal**: User input in file paths without validation

#### R - Repudiation

- Missing audit logging for sensitive operations
- Insufficient error logging
- Log injection vulnerabilities

#### I - Information Disclosure

- **IDOR**: Direct object access without ownership verification
- Verbose error messages exposing internals
- Hardcoded secrets, API keys, credentials
- Sensitive data in logs or responses
- Debug endpoints exposed

#### D - Denial of Service

- Missing rate limiting on endpoints
- Unbounded resource consumption (file uploads, queries)
- Algorithmic complexity attacks (regex, sorting)
- Missing pagination on list endpoints

#### E - Elevation of Privilege

- Missing authorization checks on endpoints
- Role/permission bypass opportunities
- Privilege escalation through parameter manipulation

### Step 5: Assess Each Finding

For each potential vulnerability:

1. **Trace data flow**: Follow user input from source to sink

   - Where does the input come from? (request params, body, headers, files)
   - Does it pass through validation/sanitization?
   - Where does it end up? (database, shell, response, file system)

2. **Check for existing mitigations**:

   - Is there validation elsewhere in the codebase?
   - Are there middleware/decorators that protect this code?
   - Does the framework provide automatic protection?

3. **Determine severity**:

   - **CRITICAL**: Remote code execution, auth bypass, data breach
   - **HIGH**: SQL injection, XSS, IDOR, privilege escalation
   - **MEDIUM**: Information disclosure, missing security headers
   - **LOW**: Best practice violations, minor issues

4. **Assess confidence**:
   - **HIGH**: Clear vulnerable pattern, direct data flow, no mitigations
   - **MEDIUM**: Possible vulnerability, some uncertainty about context
   - **LOW**: Suspicious pattern, likely has mitigations we can't see

### Step 6: Generate Report

Create `security-findings.json` with this structure:

```json
{
  "scan_id": "scan-YYYY-MM-DD-XXX",
  "scan_date": "<ISO 8601 timestamp>",
  "scan_type": "pr|commit|range|staged|working",
  "commit_range": "<base>..<head>",
  "pr_number": null,
  "threat_model_version": "<from security-config.json>",
  "findings": [
    {
      "id": "VULN-001",
      "severity": "HIGH",
      "stride_category": "Tampering",
      "vulnerability_type": "SQL Injection",
      "cwe": "CWE-89",
      "file": "src/api/users.py",
      "line_range": "45-49",
      "code_context": "<vulnerable code snippet>",
      "analysis": "<explanation of why this is vulnerable>",
      "exploit_scenario": "<how an attacker could exploit this>",
      "threat_model_reference": "Section 5.2 - SQL Injection",
      "existing_mitigations": [],
      "recommended_fix": "<how to fix the vulnerability>",
      "confidence": "HIGH",
      "reasoning": "<why this confidence level>"
    }
  ],
  "summary": {
    "total_findings": 0,
    "by_severity": { "CRITICAL": 0, "HIGH": 0, "MEDIUM": 0, "LOW": 0 },
    "by_stride": {
      "Spoofing": 0,
      "Tampering": 0,
      "Repudiation": 0,
      "InfoDisclosure": 0,
      "DoS": 0,
      "ElevationOfPrivilege": 0
    },
    "files_analyzed": 0
  }
}
```

### Step 7: Report Results

1. Save findings to `security-findings.json`
2. Report summary to user (findings count by severity, triggered thresholds)
3. Check severity thresholds from `security-config.json` and note if any are triggered

## CWE Reference

Common CWE mappings for findings:

| Vulnerability Type       | CWE     |
| ------------------------ | ------- |
| SQL Injection            | CWE-89  |
| Command Injection        | CWE-78  |
| XSS (Reflected)          | CWE-79  |
| XSS (Stored)             | CWE-79  |
| Path Traversal           | CWE-22  |
| IDOR                     | CWE-639 |
| Missing Authentication   | CWE-306 |
| Missing Authorization    | CWE-862 |
| Hardcoded Credentials    | CWE-798 |
| Sensitive Data Exposure  | CWE-200 |
| Mass Assignment          | CWE-915 |
| Open Redirect            | CWE-601 |
| SSRF                     | CWE-918 |
| XXE                      | CWE-611 |
| Insecure Deserialization | CWE-502 |

## Example Invocations

**Scan a PR:**

```
Scan PR #123 for security vulnerabilities
```

**Scan staged changes before committing:**

```
Scan my staged changes for security issues
```

**Scan a feature branch:**

```
Scan changes from main to feature/user-auth for vulnerabilities
```

**Scan recent commits:**

```
Scan the last 5 commits for security issues
```

## References

- Analysis examples: `analysis-examples.md` (in this skill directory)
- Threat model: `.factory/threat-model.md`
- Security config: `.factory/security-config.json`
- [OWASP Top 10](https://owasp.org/www-project-top-ten/)
- [CWE Top 25](https://cwe.mitre.org/top25/)

More Code Review skills

pr-to-video

heygen-com/hyperframes

Turn a GitHub pull request (a PR URL, owner/repo#N, or 'this PR' in a checked-out repo) into a code-change explainer video — changelog, feature reveal, fix, or refactor walkthrough built from the diff, commits, and files: the input is a code change, not a website. Not a product promo (/product-launch-video) or a no-PR topic explainer (/faceless-explainer). Unclear → /hyperframes.

178.9k

receiving-code-review

obra/superpowers

Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation

178.0k

public-relations

coreyhaines31/marketingskills

When the user wants help with public relations, earned media, press coverage, journalist outreach, or media strategy (not pull requests). Also use when the user mentions 'PR,' 'public relations,' 'press,' 'press release,' 'press coverage,' 'media outreach,' 'pitch a journalist,' 'get featured,' 'media list,' 'media kit,' 'press kit,' 'newsjacking,' 'news hijack,' 'HARO,' 'Qwoted,' 'Featured,' 'Help A Reporter,' 'reporter request,' 'tech press,' 'TechCrunch,' 'earned media,' 'thought leadership placement,' 'op-ed,' 'guest article,' 'press contacts,' 'podcast prep,' 'going on a podcast,' 'podcast guest,' 'prep me for this podcast,' or 'how do I get press.' Use this for earned media work — finding journalists, pitching stories, newsjacking, prepping podcast appearances, and responding to press requests. For startup/SaaS/AI directory submissions, see directory-submissions. For product launches, see launch. For social-media engagement, see social. For cold-email outreach to prospects, see cold-email.

33.1k

← All Code Review skills

Check your AI visibility

One URL in, a 0–100 score and the exact fixes out.

RUN THE CHECK

Browse all the tools

15 tools across six categories
13 of them never send your data anywhere

Free · No signup · No trial clock

SEE THE DIRECTORY