Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

security-threat-model(安全威胁模型)

用于辅助安全审计、权限检查、凭据风险、认证流程和常见漏洞排查。它适合让 Agent 梳理敏感配置、检查依赖风险、分析鉴权逻辑或生成安全复核清单。使用时不能把工具输出直接当最终结论,涉及密钥、令牌、用户数据或生产系统时,应先确认最小权限、脱敏方式和操作边界。

security-threat-model 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为接触敏感数据;许可证为 MIT,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,674 个 Skill 里排第 41,189。

总安装 1,211周安装 49GitHub Stars 85下载 380核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
MIT

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:security-threat-model(安全威胁模型)
来源仓库:https://github.com/lyndonkl/claude
仓库路径:skills/security-threat-model
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/lyndonkl/claude --skill security-threat-model
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。不同来源提供的安装方式可能略有差异;本站展示可直接复制的安装命令,安装前请核对来源页面。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/lyndonkl/claude --skill security-threat-model

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

用于构建和分析安全威胁模型。security-threat-model 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。适合识别系统潜在攻击面和风险路径。可帮助制定防御策略和应急响应预案。需结合实际业务场景调整模型参数。

适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。建议定期更新以反映最新威胁态势。

来源仓库内路径:skills/security-threat-model

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/lyndonkl/claude --skill security-threat-model;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要接触敏感数据,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

security-threat-model 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/lyndonkl/claude --skill security-threat-model。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

security-threat-model 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

security-threat-model 需要什么权限?

权限级别是接触敏感数据。该 Skill 可能接触密钥、Token、环境变量或敏感配置,应进入高风险复核队列,默认不自动发布。

security-threat-model 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

security-threat-model 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 1,211 次,近一周安装 49 次,下载 380 次,GitHub 85 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

security-threat-model 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 3 个目录同时收录,说明这个 Skill 流传比较广。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT,商用和分发边界好判断。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。

先想清楚的地方

  • 需要接触敏感数据,装到常用环境前要先评估影响面。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 需要许可证清楚、并且有第三方扫描结果的团队项目。

不太适合

  • 环境里有大量密钥、凭证,不方便给第三方 Skill 读取的人。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
security-threat-model

安全威胁模型 · 本页

1,21185接触敏感数据MIT通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Security Threat Model

Table of Contents

  1. Workflow
  2. STRIDE Framework
  3. Trust Boundary Mapping
  4. Common Patterns
  5. Guardrails
  6. Quick Reference

Workflow

Copy this checklist and track your progress:

Security Threat Model Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Map system architecture and data flows
- [ ] Step 2: Identify trust boundaries
- [ ] Step 3: Classify data and compliance requirements
- [ ] Step 4: Apply STRIDE to identify threats
- [ ] Step 5: Define mitigations, monitoring, and prioritize risks

Step 1: Map system architecture and data flows

Document components, external services, users, data stores, and communication paths. See Common Patterns for architecture examples. For straightforward systems → Use resources/template.md.

Step 2: Identify trust boundaries

Mark where data crosses security domains (user → server, server → database, internal → third-party). See Trust Boundary Mapping for boundary types.

Step 3: Classify data and compliance requirements

Rate data sensitivity (public, internal, confidential, restricted), identify PII/PHI/PCI, document compliance obligations (GDPR, HIPAA, PCI DSS). See resources/template.md for classification tables.

Step 4: Apply STRIDE to identify threats

For each trust boundary and data flow, systematically check all six STRIDE threat categories. See STRIDE Framework for threat identification. For complex systems with multiple attack surfaces → Study resources/methodology.md for advanced attack tree analysis and DREAD scoring.

Step 5: Define mitigations, monitoring, and prioritize risks

Propose preventive/detective/corrective controls, establish monitoring and alerting, prioritize by risk score (likelihood × impact). Self-check using resources/evaluators/rubric_security_threat_model.json. Minimum standard: Average score ≥ 3.5.

STRIDE Framework

S - Spoofing Identity

  • Threat: Attacker impersonates legitimate user or system
  • Examples: Stolen credentials, session hijacking, caller ID spoofing, email spoofing
  • Mitigations: Multi-factor authentication, certificate validation, cryptographic signatures, mutual TLS

T - Tampering with Data

  • Threat: Unauthorized modification of data in transit or at rest
  • Examples: Man-in-the-middle attacks, SQL injection, file modification, message replay
  • Mitigations: HTTPS/TLS, input validation, parameterized queries, digital signatures, checksums, immutable storage

R - Repudiation

  • Threat: User denies performing action, no proof of activity
  • Examples: Deleted logs, unsigned transactions, missing audit trails
  • Mitigations: Comprehensive audit logging, digital signatures on transactions, tamper-proof logs, third-party timestamping

I - Information Disclosure

  • Threat: Exposure of sensitive information to unauthorized parties
  • Examples: Database dumps, verbose error messages, unencrypted backups, API over-fetching
  • Mitigations: Encryption at rest/in transit, access control, data minimization, secure deletion, redaction in logs

D - Denial of Service

  • Threat: System becomes unavailable or degraded
  • Examples: Resource exhaustion, distributed attacks, algorithmic complexity exploits, storage filling
  • Mitigations: Rate limiting, auto-scaling, circuit breakers, input size limits, CDN/DDoS protection

E - Elevation of Privilege

  • Threat: Attacker gains unauthorized access or permissions
  • Examples: SQL injection to admin, IDOR to other user data, path traversal, privilege escalation bugs
  • Mitigations: Principle of least privilege, input validation, authorization checks on every request, role-based access control

Trust Boundary Mapping

Trust boundary: Where data crosses security domains with different trust levels.

Common boundaries:

  • User → Application: Untrusted input enters system (validate, sanitize, rate limit)
  • Application → Database: Application credentials vs. user permissions (parameterized queries, connection pooling)
  • Internal → External Service: Data leaves your control (encryption, audit logging, contract terms)
  • Public → Private Network: Internet to internal systems (firewall, VPN, API gateway)
  • Client-side → Server-side: JavaScript to backend (never trust client, re-validate server-side)
  • Privileged → Unprivileged Code: Admin functions vs. user code (isolation, separate processes, security boundaries)

Boundary analysis questions:

  • What data crosses this boundary? (classify sensitivity)
  • Who/what is on each side? (authentication, authorization)
  • What could go wrong at this crossing? (apply STRIDE)
  • What controls protect this boundary? (authentication, encryption, validation, rate limiting)

Common Patterns

Pattern 1: Web Application with Database

  • Boundaries: User ↔ Web Server ↔ Database
  • Critical threats: SQLi (Tampering), XSS (Spoofing), CSRF (Spoofing), session hijacking (Spoofing), IDOR (Elevation of Privilege)
  • Key mitigations: Parameterized queries, CSP headers, CSRF tokens, HttpOnly/Secure cookies, authorization checks

Pattern 2: API with Third-Party OAuth

  • Boundaries: User ↔ Frontend ↔ API Server ↔ OAuth Provider ↔ Third-Party API
  • Critical threats: Token theft (Spoofing), scope creep (Elevation of Privilege), authorization code interception, redirect URI manipulation
  • Key mitigations: PKCE for public clients, state parameter validation, token rotation, minimal scopes, HTTPS only

Pattern 3: Microservices Architecture

  • Boundaries: API Gateway ↔ Service A ↔ Service B ↔ Message Queue ↔ Database
  • Critical threats: Service impersonation (Spoofing), lateral movement (Elevation of Privilege), message tampering (Tampering), service enumeration (Information Disclosure)
  • Key mitigations: mTLS between services, service mesh, API authentication per service, network policies, least privilege IAM

Pattern 4: File Upload Service

  • Boundaries: User ↔ Upload Handler ↔ Virus Scanner ↔ Object Storage
  • Critical threats: Malware upload (Tampering), path traversal (Information Disclosure), file overwrite (Tampering), storage exhaustion (DoS)
  • Key mitigations: File type validation (magic bytes not extension), size limits, virus scanning, unique file naming, separate storage domain

Pattern 5: Mobile App with Backend API

  • Boundaries: Mobile App ↔ API Gateway ↔ Backend Services
  • Critical threats: API key extraction (Information Disclosure), certificate pinning bypass (Tampering), local data theft (Information Disclosure), reverse engineering
  • Key mitigations: Certificate pinning, ProGuard/R8 obfuscation, biometric auth, local encryption (Keychain/Keystore), root/jailbreak detection

Guardrails

Assume breach mindset:

  • Don't ask "can attacker get in?" but "when attacker gets in, what damage can they do?"
  • Defense in depth: Multiple overlapping controls, no single point of failure
  • Least privilege: Minimal permissions by default, explicit grants only

Prioritize realistically:

  • Focus on high-value assets (customer data, credentials, financial data) first
  • Address compliance-critical threats (PCI, HIPAA) before nice-to-haves
  • Balance security cost vs. risk (don't over-engineer low-risk systems)

Avoid security theater:

  • Security theater: Controls that feel secure but don't meaningfully reduce risk (e.g., password complexity without rate limiting = still vulnerable to credential stuffing)
  • Effective security: Address actual threat vectors with measurable risk reduction

Document assumptions:

  • "Assumes database is not publicly accessible" (validate with network config)
  • "Assumes TLS 1.2+ enforced" (verify in load balancer settings)
  • "Assumes environment variables protected" (confirm secrets management)

Update threat model:

  • Threat models decay (new features, new attack techniques, infrastructure changes)
  • Review quarterly or when architecture changes significantly
  • Incorporate lessons from incidents and security research

Quick Reference

Resources:

5-Step Process: Map Architecture → Identify Boundaries → Classify Data → Apply STRIDE → Mitigate & Monitor

STRIDE: Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, Elevation of Privilege

Trust Boundaries: User→App, App→DB, Internal→External, Public→Private, Client→Server, Privileged→Unprivileged

Mitigation Types: Preventive (block attacks), Detective (identify attacks), Corrective (respond to attacks)

Prioritization: High-value assets first, compliance-critical threats, realistic risk vs. cost balance

平台分布

Claude Code

31.22%
按下载量换算119

Gemini CLI

21.25%
按下载量换算81

Antigravity

19.05%
按下载量换算72

windsurf

11.69%
按下载量换算44

OpenCode

8.09%
按下载量换算31

github-copilot

3.73%
按下载量换算14

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

接触敏感数据

该 Skill 可能接触密钥、Token、环境变量或敏感配置,应进入高风险复核队列,默认不自动发布。

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。

继续浏览同类 Skills