Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索只读github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

red-teaming红队

Agent Skill

red-teaming 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

475

周安装

20

GitHub Stars

6

下载量

166
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:red-teaming(红队)
来源仓库:https://github.com/andurilcode/skills
仓库路径:skills/red-teaming
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/andurilcode/skills --skill red-teaming
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/andurilcode/skills --skill red-teaming

简介

模拟攻击者视角主动寻找系统漏洞,涵盖技术、社会工程与流程维度,提升整体防御能力。

  • 适用于安全审计、渗透测试与韧性评估,假设系统将被智能对手攻破。
  • 从已知信息出发,尝试越权访问、注入攻击与拒绝服务,记录所有成功路径。
  • 需定义攻击面范围与退出条件,避免造成实际损害或违反法律。
  • 输出应聚焦修复建议而非攻击细节,适合与安全团队协作实施。

SKILL.md

Red Teaming

Core principle: Assume the system will be attacked, gamed, or stressed by an intelligent adversary. Think like the attacker. Find weaknesses before they're exploited.


Red Team Mindset

Actively try to break the system, not validate it.

  • Hostile intent — How would a bad actor abuse this?
  • Assume failure — Start from "this has failed" — what enabled it?
  • Partial information — What does the adversary know that defenders don't?
  • Creativity — Attackers aren't constrained by intended use
  • Asymmetry — Defenders protect everything; attackers need one opening

Red Team Dimensions

1. Technical Attack Surface

  • Inputs that could be manipulated
  • Assumptions about data validity
  • Edge cases, limits, unexpected inputs
  • Trust boundaries — can they be crossed?
  • Failure under load, partial failure, poisoned input

2. Incentive & Game Theory

  • Who has incentive to game/subvert this?
  • What does the incentive structure actually reward (vs. intends to)?
  • Maximum-extraction / minimum-contribution path?
  • Collusion risks between actors?

3. Process & Human

  • Reliance on human judgment, discipline, vigilance
  • Social engineering vectors
  • Insider acting against the system
  • Process ambiguity enabling inconsistent/exploitable behavior

4. Assumption Attacks

  • What must be true — and what if each is false?
  • Information asymmetry between parties
  • Dependencies that could be weaponized

5. Cascade & Systemic

  • Single failure that propagates most widely
  • Highest-impact, lowest-effort attack
  • What a sophisticated attacker would do that a naive one wouldn't
  • Kill chain — sequence to catastrophic failure

Output Format

Attack Surface Map

  • Entry points (inputs, interfaces, dependencies)
  • Trust boundaries (one actor's output → another's input)
  • High-value targets

Top Attack Scenarios

For each:

  • Name | Actor (external/insider/automated/accidental) | Method | Impact (CIA + reputation/financial) | Likelihood (L/M/H) | Current defenses | Defense gaps

Highest-Risk Findings

Ranked: (Likelihood × Impact) / Existing Defenses. Top 3 to fix first.

Kill Chain Analysis

For the most critical scenario:

[Initial access] → [Lateral movement] → [Exploitation] → [Impact]

At each step: what stops the attacker? what's missing?

Hardening Recommendations

For each high-risk finding:

  • Short-term — reduce exposure now, even imperfectly
  • Long-term — eliminate or fundamentally reduce the surface
  • Detection — if prevention fails, how do we know?

Red Team Questions by Domain

Software / Architecture

  • Malformed, empty, enormous, or adversarial input?
  • Dependency returns unexpected data or fails silently?
  • Two requests race?
  • Credential or token leaked?
  • Component compromised from within?

AI / Agent Systems

  • Prompt injection in input?
  • Context poisoned by a prior step?
  • Tool the agent calls is compromised or returns false data?
  • Agent asked to act outside intended scope?
  • Two agents give conflicting instructions to a third?

Product / Business

  • User extracts value without paying?
  • User reverse-engineers to game metrics?
  • Competitor copies model and undercuts?
  • Key partner defects or changes terms?
  • Regulatory conditions change?

Organization / Process

  • Key person leaves?
  • Incentives push people to hide info from each other?
  • Process followed to the letter but not the spirit?
  • Deadline pressure causes safeguards to be skipped?

Levels of Depth

LevelDescriptionWhen
OpportunisticSurface checks, low effortQuick validation, early design
SystematicFull surface enumerationPre-launch, major arch changes
AdversarialDeep creative attack — sophisticated threat actorHigh-stakes, security-critical

Asymmetric Paranoia

The red team doesn't need every flaw — it needs the one that matters most. Always prioritize: *highest-impact attack that currently has no defense*.

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

33.73%
按下载量换算56

Claude

32.31%
按下载量换算54

Cursor

18.27%
按下载量换算30

Gemini CLI

9.21%
按下载量换算15

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills