Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

signed-audit-trails-recipe(签署的审计跟踪配方)

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。

signed-audit-trails-recipe 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;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描有提醒项,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 7,594。

总安装 18,544周安装 765GitHub Stars 34,509下载 6,059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
unknown

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:signed-audit-trails-recipe(签署的审计跟踪配方)
来源仓库:https://github.com/wshobson/agents
仓库路径:skills/signed-audit-trails-recipe
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/wshobson/agents --skill signed-audit-trails-recipe
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/wshobson/agents --skill signed-audit-trails-recipe

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。

用于辅助安全审计和凭据风险检查。signed-audit-trails-recipe 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。适合梳理敏感配置或生成安全复核清单。通过 GitHub 安装,需确认最小权限和脱敏方式。不能将工具输出直接作为最终结论。

适用于 Codex、Claude、Cursor 等安全审计场景。

来源仓库内路径:skills/signed-audit-trails-recipe

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/wshobson/agents --skill signed-audit-trails-re…;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

signed-audit-trails-recipe 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/wshobson/agents --skill signed-audit-trails-recipe。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

signed-audit-trails-recipe 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。

signed-audit-trails-recipe 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。

signed-audit-trails-recipe 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

signed-audit-trails-recipe 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 18,544 次,近一周安装 765 次,下载 6,059 次,GitHub 34,509 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。

signed-audit-trails-recipe 安全吗?

第三方扫描有提醒项,说明存在需要人工确认的行为。安装前请打开源码看清它读了什么、联网到哪里。

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。
  • 来源仓库有 34,509 星,维护活跃度相对可查。

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。
  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 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。

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。
  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 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
signed-audit-trails-recipe

签署的审计跟踪配方 · 本页

18,54434,509接触敏感数据未明确有提醒

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

Signed Audit Trails for Claude Code Tool Calls

Cookbook-style walkthrough for cryptographically signed receipts on every Claude Code tool call. This is the teaching skill. For the runtime implementation, install the protect-mcp plugin.

What this gives you

Every tool call (Bash, Edit, Write, WebFetch) is:

  1. Evaluated against a Cedar policy before execution. If the policy denies the call, the tool does not run.
  2. Signed as an Ed25519 receipt after execution. Receipts are JCS-canonical, hash-chained, and verifiable offline by anyone with the public key.

An auditor, regulator, or counterparty can verify the full chain later with a single CLI command (npx @veritasacta/verify receipts/*.json). No network call, no vendor lookup, no trust in the operator.

When to use the pattern

  • Regulated environments (finance, healthcare, critical infrastructure) where you need tamper-evident evidence of agent behavior
  • CI/CD pipelines where you want to prove that a policy gate held for every automated build step
  • Multi-party collaboration where a counterparty wants to verify your agent's behavior without trusting your operator
  • Compliance contexts (EU AI Act Article 12, SLSA provenance for agent-built software) where standard logging is not sufficient

Step 1: Install the hook configuration

Create .claude/settings.json in your project root:

{
  "hooks": {
    "PreToolUse": [
      {
        "matcher": ".*",
        "hook": {
          "type": "command",
          "command": "npx protect-mcp@latest evaluate --policy ./protect.cedar --tool \"$TOOL_NAME\" --input \"$TOOL_INPUT\" --fail-on-missing-policy false"
        }
      }
    ],
    "PostToolUse": [
      {
        "matcher": ".*",
        "hook": {
          "type": "command",
          "command": "npx protect-mcp@latest sign --tool \"$TOOL_NAME\" --input \"$TOOL_INPUT\" --output \"$TOOL_OUTPUT\" --receipts ./receipts/ --key ./protect-mcp.key"
        }
      }
    ]
  }
}

The first run of protect-mcp sign generates ./protect-mcp.key (Ed25519 private key) if one does not exist. Commit the public key fingerprint (visible in any receipt's public_key field); do not commit the private key.

Add the private key and receipt directory to .gitignore:

echo "./protect-mcp.key" >> .gitignore
echo "./receipts/" >> .gitignore

Step 2: Write a Cedar policy

Create ./protect.cedar:

// Allow all read-oriented tools by default.
permit (
    principal,
    action in [Action::"Read", Action::"Glob", Action::"Grep", Action::"WebSearch"],
    resource
);

// Allow Bash commands from a safe list only.
permit (
    principal,
    action == Action::"Bash",
    resource
) when {
    context.command_pattern in [
        "git", "npm", "pnpm", "yarn", "ls", "cat", "pwd",
        "echo", "test", "node", "python", "make"
    ]
};

// Explicit deny on destructive commands. Cedar deny is authoritative.
forbid (
    principal,
    action == Action::"Bash",
    resource
) when {
    context.command_pattern in ["rm -rf", "dd", "mkfs", "shred"]
};

// Restrict writes to the project directory.
permit (
    principal,
    action in [Action::"Write", Action::"Edit"],
    resource
) when {
    context.path_starts_with == "./"
};

Four rules:

  • Read-oriented tools always allowed
  • Bash allowed for safe command patterns (git, npm, etc.)
  • Bash rm -rf and similar destructive commands explicitly denied
  • Writes allowed only within the project (./ prefix)

Cedar forbid rules take precedence over permit rules, so destructive commands cannot be bypassed by a later permissive rule.

Step 3: Use Claude Code normally

Start Claude Code. Every tool call goes through both hooks:

You: Please read the README and summarize it.

Claude: I will read README.md.
  [PreToolUse: Read ./README.md -> allow]
  [Tool: Read executes]
  [PostToolUse: receipt rcpt-a8f3c9d2 signed to ./receipts/]

... summary of README ...

A session of 20 tool calls produces 20 receipts, each hash-chained to its predecessor.

Step 4: Inspect a receipt

cat ./receipts/$(ls -t ./receipts/ | head -1)
{
  "receipt_id": "rcpt-a8f3c9d2",
  "receipt_version": "1.0",
  "issuer_id": "claude-code-protect-mcp",
  "event_time": "2026-04-17T12:34:56.123Z",
  "tool_name": "Read",
  "input_hash": "sha256:a3f8c9d2e1b7465f...",
  "decision": "allow",
  "policy_id": "protect.cedar",
  "policy_digest": "sha256:b7e2f4a6c8d0e1f3...",
  "parent_receipt_id": "rcpt-3d1ab7c2",
  "public_key": "4437ca56815c0516...",
  "signature": "4cde814b7889e987..."
}

Every field except signature and public_key is covered by the Ed25519 signature. Modifying any field after signing invalidates the signature.

Step 5: Verify the receipt chain

npx @veritasacta/verify ./receipts/*.json

Exit codes:

CodeMeaning
0All receipts verified; chain intact
1A receipt failed signature verification (tampered, or wrong key)
2A receipt was malformed

Step 6: Demonstrate tamper detection

Modify any receipt's decision field from allow to deny:

python3 -c "
import json, os
path = './receipts/' + sorted(os.listdir('./receipts'))[-1]
r = json.loads(open(path).read())
r['decision'] = 'deny'
open(path, 'w').write(json.dumps(r))
"

npx @veritasacta/verify ./receipts/*.json

The verifier exits with code 1 and reports which receipt failed. The Ed25519 signature no longer matches the JCS-canonical bytes of the tampered payload.

Restore the field and verification passes again.

How the cryptography works

Three invariants make receipts verifiable offline across any conformant implementation:

  1. JCS canonicalization (RFC 8785) before signing. Keys sorted, whitespace minimized, strings NFC-normalized. Two independent implementations produce byte-identical signing payloads for the same receipt content.
  2. Ed25519 signatures (RFC 8032) over the canonical bytes. Deterministic, fixed-size, no nonce dependency.
  3. Hash chain linkage. Each receipt's parent_receipt_hash is the SHA-256 of the predecessor's canonical form. Insertions, deletions, and reorderings break later receipts.

For the formal wire format see draft-farley-acta-signed-receipts.

Cross-implementation interop

The receipt format has four independent implementations today:

ImplementationLanguageUse case
protect-mcpTypeScriptClaude Code, Cursor, MCP hosts
protect-mcp-adkPythonGoogle Agent Development Kit
sb-runtimeRustOS-level sandbox (Landlock + seccomp)
APS governance hookPythonCrewAI, LangChain

A receipt produced by any of them verifies against @veritasacta/verify. The auditor does not need to trust the operator's tooling choice: the format is the contract.

CI/CD integration

Gate merges on receipt chain verification so no build lands with a broken evidence chain:

# .github/workflows/verify-receipts.yml
name: Verify Decision Receipts
on: [push, pull_request]

jobs:
  verify:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
      - uses: actions/setup-node@v4
        with: { node-version: '20' }
      - name: Run governed agent
        run: python scripts/run_agent.py > receipts.jsonl
      - name: Verify receipt chain
        run: npx @veritasacta/verify receipts.jsonl

Archive the receipts as an artifact so the chain survives beyond the job run:

      - name: Upload receipts
        if: always()
        uses: actions/upload-artifact@v4
        with:
          name: decision-receipts
          path: receipts/

Composition with SLSA provenance for agent-built software

When Claude Code builds and releases software (running npm install, npm build, npm publish as tool calls), the receipt chain is the per-step build log. SLSA Provenance v1 has an extension point for this: the byproducts field can reference the receipt chain alongside the build attestation.

The agent-commit build type documents the pattern using the ResourceDescriptor shape:

{
  "name": "decision-receipts",
  "digest": { "sha256": "..." },
  "uri": "oci://registry/org/build-xyz/receipts:sha256-...",
  "annotations": {
    "predicateType": "https://veritasacta.com/attestation/decision-receipt/v0.1",
    "signerRole": "supervisor-hook"
  }
}

The SLSA provenance is signed by the builder identity; the receipt attestation is signed by the supervisor-hook identity. Two trust domains, cross-referenced at the byproduct layer. See slsa-framework/slsa#1594 for the composition discussion.

Common pitfalls

Private key in version control. The generated ./protect-mcp.key must not be committed. The examples above add it to .gitignore. If a key is accidentally committed, rotate immediately (delete the key file and let the hook regenerate on next run).

Hook command quoting. The hooks receive $TOOL_NAME and $TOOL_INPUT as environment variables. Keep the quoting "$TOOL_INPUT" so inputs with spaces or special characters pass through intact.

Receipts directory in CI. If Claude Code runs in CI, upload receipts as an artifact at the end of the job or the chain is lost at job end.

Policy is missing. The example PreToolUse hook uses --fail-on-missing-policy false so an absent ./protect.cedar does not break Claude Code out of the box. Remove this flag in production so a missing policy is treated as a hard failure.

Related in this marketplace

  • protect-mcp — the runtime hook implementation (use this plugin in production)
  • review-agent-governance — require human approval before review-surface actions; composes with protect-mcp

References

平台分布

Codex

39.18%
按下载量换算2,374

Claude

30.1%
按下载量换算1,824

Cursor

17.77%
按下载量换算1,077

Gemini CLI

9.38%
按下载量换算568

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

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。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills