security-triage
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
npx oh-my-skill add qianleigood/crawclaw/security-triagecurl -fsSL https://oh-my-skill.com/install.sh | bash -s -- qianleigood/crawclaw/security-triagenpx oh-my-skill verify qianleigood/crawclaw/security-triage怎么用
商店整理自技能原文 · 版本 f27e175 · 表述以原文为准专门审查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。
当用户要求审核CrawClaw的安全公告、草稿或GHSA报告时触发。
技能原文 SKILL.md
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:
- Read
SECURITY.md. - Read the GHSA body with
gh api /repos/crawclaw/crawclaw/security-advisories/<GHSA>. - Inspect the exact implicated code paths.
- Verify shipped state:
git tag --sort=-creatordate | headnpm view crawclaw version --userconfig "$(mktemp)"git tag --contains <fix-commit>- if needed:
git show <tag>:path/to/file - Search for canonical overlap:
- existing published GHSAs
- older fixed bugs
- same trust-model class already covered in
SECURITY.md
Review Method
For each advisory, decide:
closekeep openkeep open but narrow
Check in this order:
- Trust model
- Is the prerequisite already inside trusted host/local/plugin/operator state?
- Does
SECURITY.mdexplicitly call this class out as out of scope or hardening-only? - Shipped behavior
- Is the bug present in the latest shipped tag or npm release?
- Was it fixed before release?
- Exploit path
- Does the report show a real boundary bypass, not just prompt injection, local same-user control, or helper-level semantics?
- Functional tradeoff
- If a hardening change would reduce intended user functionality, call that out before proposing it.
- Prefer fixes that preserve user workflows over deny-by-default regressions unless the boundary demands it.
Response Format
When preparing a maintainer-ready close reply:
- Print the GHSA URL first.
- Then draft a detailed response the maintainer can post.
- Include:
- exact reason for close
- exact code refs
- exact shipped tag / release facts
- exact fix commit or canonical duplicate GHSA when applicable
- optional hardening note only if worthwhile and functionality-preserving
Keep tone firm, specific, non-defensive.
Clipboard Step
After drafting the final post body, copy it:
pbcopy <<'EOF' <final response> EOF
Tell the user that the clipboard now contains the proposed response.
Useful Commands
gh api /repos/crawclaw/crawclaw/security-advisories/<GHSA> gh api /repos/crawclaw/crawclaw/security-advisories --paginate git tag --sort=-creatordate | head -n 20 npm view crawclaw version --userconfig "$(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.