[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$fmzvsap7m9jw9":3},{"code":4,"message":5,"data":6,"timestamp":34},10000,"success",{"full_name":7,"position":8,"description":9,"language":10,"stars":11,"forks":12,"stars_gained":13,"age_days":14,"hn_threads":15,"one_liner":22,"summary_md":23,"topic":24,"github_topics":27,"license":28,"homepage":29,"updated_at":30,"history":31},"cloudflare\u002Fsecurity-audit-skill",1,"A coding-agent skill for multi-phase security audits with independently verified, machine-readable findings","JavaScript",43584,2720,2271,128,[16],{"id":17,"title":18,"points":19,"comments":20,"posted_at":21},49736466,"Cloudflare\u002FSecurity-Audit-Skill",213,38,"2026-09-17","A coding-agent skill that runs a multi-phase security audit with independently verified findings for codebases you own.","## The problem\n\nAsking a coding agent to \"find vulnerabilities\" usually produces a pile of plausible-sounding hunches, with no separation between what was actually traced and what was guessed, and no record of what was checked but found clean. For a security review that is worse than useless: false positives burn triage time and false negatives create false confidence. This skill imposes a workflow on the agent: map the attack surface first, hunt against an explicit coverage ledger, then have fresh agents try to disprove each candidate before anything is labeled confirmed.\n\n## What's different\n\nConventional AI code review is one pass, one model, one opinion, and freeform prose output. This project's distinguishing ideas are process-level: an audit that starts from a recorded coverage ledger rather than from whatever the model happens to notice; adversarial validation where the verifier is never the finder; and a three-way verdict (`confirmed`, `needs_validation`, `rejected`) enforced by JSON schema and a zero-dependency validator before reports are generated. Runs are additive, so a second audit against the same repo targets the gaps from the first instead of redoing everything. The README's own claim is modest and worth noting: a single run found roughly half of what repeated runs found.\n\n## Who it's for\n\nSecurity engineers and developers auditing codebases they own or are authorized to test, especially medium-to-large repos with many input surfaces where \"ask the agent to look at it\" is not credible. Teams building their own vulnerability harness can use it as a starting skeleton. It is not for anyone looking for an automated scanner against third-party targets, not for repos where you cannot run a sandboxed build, and not for people who want a quick one-shot review of a small script.\n\n## Cost of adoption\n\nThe hard requirement is not Node.js for the validators; it is an OS-enforced sandbox with networking disabled, a sanitized environment, resource limits, and scratch-only writes for anything that executes target code. Without that, the workflow deliberately refuses to confirm findings and holds them as `needs_validation`, which sharply reduces usefulness. You also need a coding agent with parallel sub-agents, since the isolated hunter\u002Fverifier model depends on them. Expect a real token and time budget: the process spawns many agents per audit. The README is detailed on workflow and file layout but does not publish benchmark accuracy, so treat the effectiveness claims as the author's own. MIT licensed.\n\n## Verdict\n\nThe star numbers are odd and worth flagging: 43k stars and a #1 weekly board spot for a 128-day-old skills repository is a spike pattern, not a track record, and the project has appeared on the daily board exactly once. That does not make the content bad, but it means the repository's popularity is not yet evidence of its accuracy in the field. What is genuinely interesting is the discipline: coverage ledgers, independent verification, and refusing to confirm without an established boundary failure are the right instincts for AI-assisted security work. Adopt it if you can satisfy the sandbox requirement and want a repeatable process; skip it if you need measured results rather than a well-designed workflow.",{"slug":25,"name":26},"security","Security & Privacy",[],"MIT",null,"2026-10-24T14:10:48Z",[32],{"date":33,"stars":11,"stars_gained":13},"2026-10-24",1792861178]