cli-jaw 0.1.0

package/skills_ref/security-threat-model/LICENSE.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,201 @@
+Apache License
+Version 2.0, January 2004
+http://www.apache.org/licenses/
+
+TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION
+
+1. Definitions.
+
+   "License" shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction,
+   and distribution as defined by Sections 1 through 9 of this document.
+
+   "Licensor" shall mean the copyright owner or entity authorized by
+   the copyright owner that is granting the License.
+
+   "Legal Entity" shall mean the union of the acting entity and all
+   other entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common
+   control with that entity. For the purposes of this definition,
+   "control" means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the
+   direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or
+   otherwise, or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the
+   outstanding shares, or (iii) beneficial ownership of such entity.
+
+   "You" (or "Your") shall mean an individual or Legal Entity
+   exercising permissions granted by this License.
+
+   "Source" form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications,
+   including but not limited to software source code, documentation
+   source, and configuration files.
+
+   "Object" form shall mean any form resulting from mechanical
+   transformation or translation of a Source form, including but
+   not limited to compiled object code, generated documentation,
+   and conversions to other media types.
+
+   "Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or
+   Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a
+   copyright notice that is included in or attached to the work
+   (an example is provided in the Appendix below).
+
+   "Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object
+   form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the
+   editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
+   represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes
+   of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain
+   separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of,
+   the Work and Derivative Works thereof.
+
+   "Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including
+   the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions
+   to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally
+   submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the Work by the copyright owner
+   or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of
+   the copyright owner. For the purposes of this definition, "submitted"
+   means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent
+   to the Licensor or its representatives, including but not limited to
+   communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems,
+   and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the
+   Licensor for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but
+   excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise
+   designated in writing by the copyright owner as "Not a Contribution."
+
+   "Contributor" shall mean Licensor and any individual or Legal Entity
+   on behalf of whom a Contribution has been received by Licensor and
+   subsequently incorporated within the Work.
+
+2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
+   this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
+   worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
+   copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of,
+   publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the
+   Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.
+
+3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
+   this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
+   worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
+   (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made,
+   use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work,
+   where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable
+   by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their
+   Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s)
+   with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You
+   institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
+   cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work
+   or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct
+   or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses
+   granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate
+   as of the date such litigation is filed.
+
+4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the
+   Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without
+   modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You
+   meet the following conditions:
+
+   (a) You must give any other recipients of the Work or
+       Derivative Works a copy of this License; and
+
+   (b) You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices
+       stating that You changed the files; and
+
+   (c) You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works
+       that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and
+       attribution notices from the Source form of the Work,
+       excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of
+       the Derivative Works; and
+
+   (d) If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its
+       distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must
+       include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained
+       within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not
+       pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one
+       of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed
+       as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or
+       documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or,
+       within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and
+       wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents
+       of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and
+       do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution
+       notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside
+       or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided
+       that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed
+       as modifying the License.
+
+   You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and
+   may provide additional or different license terms and conditions
+   for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or
+   for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use,
+   reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with
+   the conditions stated in this License.
+
+5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise,
+   any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work
+   by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of
+   this License, without any additional terms or conditions.
+   Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein shall supersede or modify
+   the terms of any separate license agreement you may have executed
+   with Licensor regarding such Contributions.
+
+6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade
+   names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor,
+   except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the
+   origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file.
+
+7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable law or
+   agreed to in writing, Licensor provides the Work (and each
+   Contributor provides its Contributions) on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+   WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
+   implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions
+   of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A
+   PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for determining the
+   appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and assume any
+   risks associated with Your exercise of permissions under this License.
+
+8. Limitation of Liability. In no event and under no legal theory,
+   whether in tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise,
+   unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly
+   negligent acts) or agreed to in writing, shall any Contributor be
+   liable to You for damages, including any direct, indirect, special,
+   incidental, or consequential damages of any character arising as a
+   result of this License or out of the use or inability to use the
+   Work (including but not limited to damages for loss of goodwill,
+   work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all
+   other commercial damages or losses), even if such Contributor
+   has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
+
+9. Accepting Warranty or Additional Liability. While redistributing
+   the Work or Derivative Works thereof, You may choose to offer,
+   and charge a fee for, acceptance of support, warranty, indemnity,
+   or other liability obligations and/or rights consistent with this
+   License. However, in accepting such obligations, You may act only
+   on Your own behalf and on Your sole responsibility, not on behalf of
+   any other Contributor, and only if You agree to indemnify,
+   defend, and hold each Contributor harmless for any liability
+   incurred by, or claims asserted against, such Contributor by reason
+   of your accepting any such warranty or additional liability.
+
+END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
+
+APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache License to your work.
+
+   To apply the Apache License to your work, attach the following
+   boilerplate notice, with the fields enclosed by brackets "[]"
+   replaced with your own identifying information. (Don\'t include
+   the brackets!)  The text should be enclosed in the appropriate
+   comment syntax for the file format. We also recommend that a
+   file or class name and description of purpose be included on the
+   same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier
+   identification within third-party archives.
+
+Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]
+
+Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
+you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
+You may obtain a copy of the License at
+
+    http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+
+Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+limitations under the License.

package/skills_ref/security-threat-model/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+---
+name: "security-threat-model"
+description: "Repository-grounded threat modeling that enumerates trust boundaries, assets, attacker capabilities, abuse paths, and mitigations, and writes a concise Markdown threat model. Trigger only when the user explicitly asks to threat model a codebase or path, enumerate threats/abuse paths, or perform AppSec threat modeling. Do not trigger for general architecture summaries, code review, or non-security design work."
+---
+
+# Threat Model Source Code Repo
+
+Deliver an actionable AppSec-grade threat model that is specific to the repository or a project path, not a generic checklist. Anchor every architectural claim to evidence in the repo and keep assumptions explicit. Prioritizing realistic attacker goals and concrete impacts over generic checklists.
+
+## Quick start
+
+1) Collect (or infer) inputs:
+- Repo root path and any in-scope paths.
+- Intended usage, deployment model, internet exposure, and auth expectations (if known).
+- Any existing repository summary or architecture spec.
+- Use prompts in `references/prompt-template.md` to generate a repository summary.
+- Follow the required output contract in `references/prompt-template.md`. Use it verbatim when possible.
+
+## Workflow
+
+### 1) Scope and extract the system model
+- Identify primary components, data stores, and external integrations from the repo summary.
+- Identify how the system runs (server, CLI, library, worker) and its entrypoints.
+- Separate runtime behavior from CI/build/dev tooling and from tests/examples.
+- Map the in-scope locations to those components and exclude out-of-scope items explicitly.
+- Do not claim components, flows, or controls without evidence.
+
+### 2) Derive boundaries, assets, and entry points
+- Enumerate trust boundaries as concrete edges between components, noting protocol, auth, encryption, validation, and rate limiting.
+- List assets that drive risk (data, credentials, models, config, compute resources, audit logs).
+- Identify entry points (endpoints, upload surfaces, parsers/decoders, job triggers, admin tooling, logging/error sinks).
+
+### 3) Calibrate assets and attacker capabilities
+- List the assets that drive risk (credentials, PII, integrity-critical state, availability-critical components, build artifacts).
+- Describe realistic attacker capabilities based on exposure and intended usage.
+- Explicitly note non-capabilities to avoid inflated severity.
+
+
+### 4) Enumerate threats as abuse paths
+- Prefer attacker goals that map to assets and boundaries (exfiltration, privilege escalation, integrity compromise, denial of service).
+- Classify each threat and tie it to impacted assets.
+- Keep the number of threats small but high quality.
+
+### 5) Prioritize with explicit likelihood and impact reasoning
+- Use qualitative likelihood and impact (low/medium/high) with short justifications.
+- Set overall priority (critical/high/medium/low) using likelihood x impact, adjusted for existing controls.
+- State which assumptions most influence the ranking.
+
+### 6) Validate service context and assumptions with the user
+- Summarize key assumptions that materially affect threat ranking or scope, then ask the user to confirm or correct them.
+- Ask 1–3 targeted questions to resolve missing context (service owner and environment, scale/users, deployment model, authn/authz, internet exposure, data sensitivity, multi-tenancy).
+- Pause and wait for user feedback before producing the final report.
+- If the user declines or can’t answer, state which assumptions remain and how they influence priority.
+
+### 7) Recommend mitigations and focus paths
+- Distinguish existing mitigations (with evidence) from recommended mitigations.
+- Tie mitigations to concrete locations (component, boundary, or entry point) and control types (authZ checks, input validation, schema enforcement, sandboxing, rate limits, secrets isolation, audit logging).
+- Prefer specific implementation hints over generic advice (e.g., "enforce schema at gateway for upload payloads" vs "validate inputs").
+- Base recommendations on validated user context; if assumptions remain unresolved, mark recommendations as conditional.
+
+### 8) Run a quality check before finalizing
+- Confirm all discovered entrypoints are covered.
+- Confirm each trust boundary is represented in threats.
+- Confirm runtime vs CI/dev separation.
+- Confirm user clarifications (or explicit non-responses) are reflected.
+- Confirm assumptions and open questions are explicit.
+- Confirm that the format of the report matches closely the required output format defined in prompt template: `references/prompt-template.md`
+- Write the final Markdown to a file named `<repo-or-dir-name>-threat-model.md` (use the basename of the repo root, or the in-scope directory if you were asked to model a subpath).
+
+
+## Risk prioritization guidance (illustrative, not exhaustive)
+- High: pre-auth RCE, auth bypass, cross-tenant access, sensitive data exfiltration, key or token theft, model or config integrity compromise, sandbox escape.
+- Medium: targeted DoS of critical components, partial data exposure, rate-limit bypass with measurable impact, log/metrics poisoning that affects detection.
+- Low: low-sensitivity info leaks, noisy DoS with easy mitigation, issues requiring unlikely preconditions.
+
+## References
+
+- Output contract and full prompt template: `references/prompt-template.md`
+- Optional controls/asset list: `references/security-controls-and-assets.md`
+
+Only load the reference files you need. Keep the final result concise, grounded, and reviewable.

package/skills_ref/security-threat-model/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "Security Threat Model"
+  short_description: "Repo-grounded threat modeling and abuse-path analysis"
+  default_prompt: "Create a repository-grounded threat model for this codebase with prioritized abuse paths and mitigations."

package/skills_ref/security-threat-model/references/prompt-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,255 @@
+# Threat Modeling Prompt Template for LLMs
+
+This reference provides a disciplined, repo-grounded prompt that produces AppSec-usable threat models. Use it when you need a reliable output contract and a consistent process to assemble the threat model output
+
+## System prompt
+
+Use this as a stable system prompt:
+
+````text
+You are a senior application security engineer producing a threat model that will be read by other AppSec engineers.
+
+Primary objective:
+- Generate a threat model that is specific to THIS repository and its real-world usage.
+- Prefer concrete, evidence-backed findings over generic vulnerability checklists.
+
+Evidence and grounding rules:
+- Do not invent components, data stores, endpoints, flows, or controls.
+- Every architectural claim must be backed by at least one "Evidence anchor" referencing a repo path
+  (and a symbol name, config key, or a short quoted snippet if available).
+- If information is missing, state assumptions explicitly and list the open questions needed to validate them.
+
+Security hygiene:
+- Never output secrets. If you encounter tokens/keys/passwords, redact them and only describe their presence and location.
+
+Threat modeling approach:
+- Model the system using data flows and trust boundaries.
+- Enumerate threats and produce attack goals and abuse paths
+- Prioritize threats using explicit likelihood and impact reasoning (qualitative is acceptable: low/medium/high).
+
+Scope discipline:
+- Clearly separate: production/runtime behavior vs CI/build/dev tooling vs tests/examples.
+- Clearly separate attacker-controlled inputs vs operator-controlled inputs vs developer-controlled inputs.
+- If a vulnerability class requires attacker control that likely does not exist for this repo's real usage, say so and downgrade severity.
+
+Communication quality:
+- Write for AppSec engineers: concise but specific.
+- Use precise terminology. Include mitigations and residual risks.
+- Avoid restating large blocks of README/spec; summarize and point to evidence.
+
+Diagram requirements:
+- Produce a single compact Mermaid flowchart showing primary components and trust boundaries.
+- Mermaid must render cleanly. Use a conservative subset:
+  - Use `flowchart TD` or `flowchart LR` and only `-->` arrows.
+  - Use simple node IDs (letters/numbers/underscores only) and quoted labels (e.g., `A["Label"]`); avoid `A(Label)` shape syntax.
+  - Do not use Mermaid `title` lines or `style` directives.
+  - Keep edge labels to plain words/spaces only via `-->|label|`; avoid `{}`, `[]`, `()`, or quotes in edge labels (if needed, drop the label).
+  - Keep node labels short and readable: do not include file paths, URLs, or socket paths (put those details in prose outside the diagram).
+- Wrap the diagram in a Markdown fenced block:
+  ```mermaid
+  <mermaid syntax here>
+  ```
+````
+
+## Repository summary prompt
+
+```
+We have a codebase located at {repo_directory/path}, currently on branch {branch_name}.
+
+Please produce a security-oriented summary of the repository (or the specified sub-path) with the goal of helping a follow-on security engineer quickly understand the system well enough to build an initial threat model and investigate potential security hypotheses.
+
+Objectives
+1.	Project overview
+	•	Identify the primary programming languages, frameworks, and build system.
+	•	Summarize the project’s core purpose and high-level architecture.
+	•	Describe major components, services, or modules and how they interact.
+2.	Security posture and entry points
+	•	Identify likely user entry points and trust boundaries.
+	•	Describe existing security layers (e.g., authentication, authorization, validation, sandboxing, isolation, privilege boundaries).
+	•	Call out security-critical components and assumptions that must hold for the system to remain secure.
+
+Guidance for Security Analysis
+
+Structure the summary so an application security engineer can quickly answer questions such as:
+	•	Where does user input originate?
+	•	How is untrusted data parsed, validated, and handled?
+	•	What security assumptions should not be violated?
+	•	Where are the most likely choke points for security bugs?
+
+Adapt the analysis to the project type. For example:
+	•	Web applications: where requests enter, how user data is parsed, routed, authenticated, and stored.
+	•	Command-line tools: supported inputs (arguments, files, environment variables, stdin) and how they are processed.
+	•	Network daemons: exposed ports, supported protocols, message formats, and request handling paths.
+	•	Operating system or low-level components: common vulnerability classes (e.g., memory corruption, logic flaws) that could lead to LPE or RCE.
+
+Be thorough but pragmatic: the goal is to help a security engineer quickly determine whether a discovered bug is security-relevant and where deeper investigation should focus.
+
+Tooling Notes
+
+If Ripgrep (rg) is available, use it to explore the codebase. When using grep or rg, always include the -I flag to avoid searching through binary files.
+```
+
+
+
+## User prompt template
+
+Use this as the task prompt, filling in what you know and marking the rest as assumptions:
+
+```text
+# Inputs
+Context (fill as available; otherwise infer and mark assumptions):
+- intended_usage: {intended_usage}
+- deployment_model: {deployment_model}
+- data_sensitivity: {data_sensitivity}
+- internet_exposure: {internet_exposure}
+- authn_authz_expectations: {authn_authz_expectations}
+- out_of_scope: {out_of_scope}
+
+Provided summaries (may be incomplete):
+- repository_summary: {repository_summary}
+
+
+In-scope code locations (if known):
+- in_scope_paths: {in_scope_paths}
+
+# Task
+Construct a repo-centric threat model that helps AppSec engineers understand the most important security risks and where to focus manual review.
+
+You MUST follow this process and reflect outputs in the final document:
+
+## Process
+1) Repo discovery (evidence collection)
+   a. Identify the repo shape:
+      - languages and frameworks
+      - how it runs (server/cli/library), entrypoints, build artifacts
+   b. Identify security-relevant surfaces and controls by searching for evidences, such as:
+      - network listeners/routes/endpoints; RPC handlers; message consumers
+      - authentication, session/token handling, authorization checks, RBAC/ACL logic
+      - parsing/serialization/deserialization (JSON/YAML/XML/protobuf), template rendering, eval/dynamic code
+      - file upload/read paths, archive extraction, image/document parsing
+      - database/queue/cache clients and query construction
+      - secrets/config loading, environment variables, key management
+      - SSRF-capable HTTP clients, webhooks, URL fetchers
+      - sandboxing/isolation, privilege boundaries, subprocess execution
+      - logging/auditing and error handling paths
+      - CI/build/release: pipelines, dependency management, artifact publishing
+   
+2) System model
+   a. Summarize the primary components (runtime plus critical build/CI components when relevant).
+   b. Enumerate data flows and trust boundaries.
+      - For each trust boundary, specify:
+        * source to destination
+        * data types crossing (e.g., credentials, PII, files, tokens, prompts)
+        * channel/protocol (HTTP/gRPC/IPC/file/db)
+        * security guarantees and validation (auth, mTLS, origin checks, schema validation, rate limits)
+   c. Provide a compact Mermaid diagram showing components and trust boundaries.
+
+3) Assets and security objectives
+   - List assets (data, credentials, integrity-critical state, availability-critical components, build artifacts).
+   - For each asset, state why it matters (confidentiality/integrity/availability, compliance, user harm).
+
+4) Attacker model
+   - Capabilities: realistic remote attacker assumptions based on intended usage and exposure.
+   - Non-capabilities: things attacker cannot plausibly do (unless explicitly in scope), to avoid inflated severity.
+
+5) Threat enumeration (concrete, system-specific)
+   - Generate threats as attacker stories tied to:
+     * entry points
+     * trust boundaries
+     * privileged components
+   - Prefer abuse paths (multi-step sequences) over single-line generic threats.
+
+6) Risk prioritization
+   - For each threat:
+     * Likelihood: low/medium/high with a 1 to 2 sentence justification
+     * Impact: low/medium/high with a 1 to 2 sentence justification
+     * Overall priority: critical/high/medium/low (based on likelihood x impact, adjusted for existing controls)
+   - Explicitly state which assumptions most affect risk.
+
+7) Validate assumptions and service context with the user (required before final report)
+   - Summarize key assumptions that materially affect scope or risk ranking.
+   - Ask 1 to 3 targeted questions to resolve missing service meta-context (service owner/environment, scale/users, deployment model, authn/authz, internet exposure, data sensitivity, multi-tenancy).
+   - Pause and wait for user feedback before producing the final report.
+   - If the user cannot answer, proceed with explicit assumptions and mark any conditional conclusions.
+
+8) Mitigations and recommendations
+   - For each high/critical threat:
+     * Existing mitigations (with evidence anchors)
+     * Gaps/weaknesses
+     * Recommended mitigations (code/config/process)
+     * Detection/monitoring ideas (logging, metrics, alerts)
+
+9) Focus paths for manual security review
+   - Output 2 to 30 repo-relative paths (files or directories) that merit deeper review.
+   - For each path, give a one-sentence reason tied to the threat model.
+
+10) Quality check
+   - Provide a short checklist confirming you covered:
+     * all entry points you discovered
+     * each trust boundary at least once in threats
+     * runtime vs CI/dev separation
+     * user clarifications (or explicit non-responses)
+     * assumptions and open questions
+
+## Required output format (exact)
+Before producing the final Markdown report, first provide an assumption-validation check-in:
+- List the key assumptions in 3 to 6 bullets.
+- Ask 1 to 3 targeted context questions.
+- Wait for the user response, then produce the final report below using the clarified context.
+
+Produce valid Markdown with these sections in this order:
+
+## Executive summary
+- 1 short paragraph on the top risk themes and highest-risk areas.
+
+## Scope and assumptions
+- In-scope paths, out-of-scope items, and explicit assumptions.
+- A short list of open questions that would materially change the risk ranking.
+
+
+## System model
+### Primary components
+### Data flows and trust boundaries
+Represent the system as a sequence of arrow-style bullets (e.g., Internet → API Server, User Input -> Application Logic, etc). For each boundary, document:
+	•	the primary data types crossing the boundary,
+	•	the communication channel or protocol,
+	•	the security guarantees (e.g., authentication, origin checks, encryption, rate limiting), and
+	•	any input validation, normalization, or schema enforcement performed.
+
+#### Diagram
+- Include a single, compact Mermaid diagram (`flowchart TD` or `flowchart LR`) showing primary components and trust boundaries (e.g., separate trust zones via subgraphs). Keep it compact, use only `-->`, avoid `title`/`style`, keep node labels short (no paths/URLs), and keep edge labels to plain words only (avoid `{}`, `[]`, `()`, or quotes).
+
+
+## Assets and security objectives
+- A table: Asset | Why it matters | Security objective (C/I/A)
+
+## Attacker model
+### Capabilities
+### Non-capabilities
+
+## Entry points and attack surfaces
+- A table: Surface | How reached | Trust boundary | Notes | Evidence (repo path / symbol)
+
+## Top abuse paths
+- 5 to 10 short abuse paths, each as a numbered sequence of steps (attacker goal -> steps -> impact).
+
+## Threat model table
+- A Markdown table with columns:
+  Threat ID | Threat source | Prerequisites | Threat action | Impact | Impacted assets | Existing controls (evidence) | Gaps | Recommended mitigations | Detection ideas | Likelihood | Impact severity | Priority
+
+Rules:
+- Threat IDs must be stable and formatted: TM-001, TM-002, ...
+- Priority must be one of: critical, high, medium, low.
+- Keep prerequisites to 1 to 2 sentences. Keep recommended mitigations concrete.
+
+## Criticality calibration
+- Define what counts as critical/high/medium/low for THIS repo and context.
+- Include 2 to 3 examples per level (tailored to the repo's assets and exposure).
+
+## Focus paths for security review
+- A table: Path | Why it matters | Related Threat IDs
+
+## Notes on use
+
+- Fill in known context, but allow the model to infer and mark assumptions.
+- Include 1–2 repo-path anchors per major claim; do not dump every match.

package/skills_ref/security-threat-model/references/security-controls-and-assets.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+# Security Controls and Asset Categories
+
+Use this as a lightweight checklist to keep outputs consistent across teams. Prefer concrete, system-specific items over generic text.
+
+## Asset categories (pick only what applies)
+- User data (PII, content, uploads)
+- Authentication artifacts (passwords, tokens, sessions, cookies)
+- Authorization state (roles, policies, ACLs)
+- Secrets and keys (API keys, signing keys, encryption keys)
+- Configuration and feature flags
+- Models and weights (if ML systems)
+- Source code and build artifacts
+- Audit logs and telemetry
+- Availability-critical resources (queues, caches, rate limits, compute budgets)
+- Tenant isolation boundaries and metadata
+
+## Security control categories
+- Identity and access: authN, authZ, session handling, mTLS, key rotation
+- Input protection: schema validation, parsing hardening, upload scanning, sandboxing
+- Network safeguards: TLS, network policies, WAF, rate limiting, DoS controls
+- Data protection: encryption at rest/in transit, tokenization, redaction
+- Isolation: process sandboxing, container boundaries, tenant isolation, seccomp
+- Observability: audit logs, alerting, anomaly detection, tamper resistance
+- Supply chain: dependency pinning, SBOMs, provenance, signing
+- Change control: CI checks, deployment approvals, config guardrails
+
+## Mitigation phrasing patterns
+- "Enforce schema at <boundary> for <payload> before <component>."
+- "Require authZ check for <action> on <resource> in <service>."
+- "Isolate <parser/component> in a sandbox with <resource limits>."
+- "Rate limit <endpoint> by <key> and apply burst caps."
+- "Encrypt <data> at rest using <key management> and rotate <keys>."