‹ 首页

security-triage

@qianleigood · 收录于 昨天 · 上游提交 1 个月前

Triage GitHub security advisories for CrawClaw with high-confidence close/keep decisions, exact tag and commit verification, trust-model checks, optional hardening notes, and a final reply ready to post and copy to clipboard.

适合你,如果你需要高效筛选和决策大量 GitHub 安全公告

/ 通过 npx 安装 校验哈希
npx oh-my-skill add qianleigood/crawclaw/security-triage
/ 通过 bash 安装
curl -fsSL https://oh-my-skill.com/install.sh | bash -s -- qianleigood/crawclaw/security-triage
/ 已经装过?验证本机副本,不用重装
npx oh-my-skill verify qianleigood/crawclaw/security-triage
安装目标可用 --agent / --scope 或 --to 明确指定;省略时只会在唯一已存在的 agent 目录上自动选择,零命中或多命中会停止并提示。content_hash 缺失或不一致均拒装。
30GitHub stars
~801上下文体积 · 单文件
索引托管

怎么用

商店整理自技能原文 · 版本 f27e175 · 表述以原文为准
它做什么

专门审查CrawClaw仓库的安全公告(GHSA),决定关闭或保留,验证代码版本和信任范围,最后生成可发布的回复并复制到剪贴板。

什么时候触发

当用户要求审核CrawClaw的安全公告、草稿或GHSA报告时触发。

装好后可以这样说
Claude会检查条件并给出决定。
会验证代码版本和信任模型。
最终回复会复制到剪贴板。
技能原文 SKILL.md作者撰写 · MIT · f27e175

Security Triage

Use when reviewing CrawClaw security advisories, drafts, or GHSA reports.

Goal: high-confidence maintainers' triage without over-closing real issues or shipping unnecessary regressions.

Close Bar

Close only if one of these is true:

  • duplicate of an existing advisory or fixed issue
  • invalid against shipped behavior
  • out of scope under SECURITY.md
  • fixed before any affected release/tag

Do not close only because main is fixed. If latest shipped tag or npm release is affected, keep it open until released or published with the right status.

Required Reads

Before answering:

  1. Read SECURITY.md.
  2. Read the GHSA body with gh api /repos/crawclaw/crawclaw/security-advisories/<GHSA>.
  3. Inspect the exact implicated code paths.
  4. Verify shipped state:
  5. git tag --sort=-creatordate | head
  6. npm view crawclaw version --userconfig "$(mktemp)"
  7. git tag --contains <fix-commit>
  8. if needed: git show <tag>:path/to/file
  9. Search for canonical overlap:
  10. existing published GHSAs
  11. older fixed bugs
  12. same trust-model class already covered in SECURITY.md
Review Method

For each advisory, decide:

  • close
  • keep open
  • keep open but narrow

Check in this order:

  1. Trust model
  2. Is the prerequisite already inside trusted host/local/plugin/operator state?
  3. Does SECURITY.md explicitly call this class out as out of scope or hardening-only?
  4. Shipped behavior
  5. Is the bug present in the latest shipped tag or npm release?
  6. Was it fixed before release?
  7. Exploit path
  8. Does the report show a real boundary bypass, not just prompt injection, local same-user control, or helper-level semantics?
  9. Functional tradeoff
  10. If a hardening change would reduce intended user functionality, call that out before proposing it.
  11. Prefer fixes that preserve user workflows over deny-by-default regressions unless the boundary demands it.
Response Format

When preparing a maintainer-ready close reply:

  1. Print the GHSA URL first.
  2. Then draft a detailed response the maintainer can post.
  3. Include:
  4. exact reason for close
  5. exact code refs
  6. exact shipped tag / release facts
  7. exact fix commit or canonical duplicate GHSA when applicable
  8. optional hardening note only if worthwhile and functionality-preserving

Keep tone firm, specific, non-defensive.

Clipboard Step

After drafting the final post body, copy it:

pbcopy <<'EOF'
<final response>
EOF

Tell the user that the clipboard now contains the proposed response.

Useful Commands
gh api /repos/crawclaw/crawclaw/security-advisories/<GHSA>
gh api /repos/crawclaw/crawclaw/security-advisories --paginate
git tag --sort=-creatordate | head -n 20
npm view crawclaw version --userconfig "$(mktemp)"
git tag --contains <commit>
git show <tag>:<path>
gh search issues --repo crawclaw/crawclaw --match title,body,comments -- "<terms>"
gh search prs --repo crawclaw/crawclaw --match title,body,comments -- "<terms>"
Decision Notes
  • “fixed on main, unreleased” is usually not a close.
  • “needs attacker-controlled trusted local state first” is usually out of scope.
  • “same-host same-user process can already read/write local state” is usually out of scope.
  • “helper function behaves differently than documented config semantics” is usually invalid.
  • If only the severity is wrong but the bug is real, keep it open and narrow the impact in the reply.
按 MIT 许可原样转载,未经改动 · 在 GitHub 查看 →

评论

登录即可评论;带「已验证安装」的,是发布者名下有本店的安装或持有记录。