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

waf-assessmentWAF 评估

Agent Skill

waf-assessment 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

256

周安装

11

GitHub Stars

162

下载量

90
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:waf-assessment(WAF 评估)
来源仓库:https://github.com/thomast1906/github-copilot-agent-skills
仓库路径:skills/waf-assessment
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/thomast1906/github-copilot-agent-skills --skill waf-assessment
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/thomast1906/github-copilot-agent-skills --skill waf-assessment

简介

用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,支持根据关键词快速定位候选结果。

  • 适用于研究检索类任务,常见于安全评估场景,如 WAF 规则分析与测试用例准备。
  • 通过 npx skills add 命令从 GitHub 仓库安装,具体功能依赖原始 SKILL.md 说明。
  • 建议在使用前确认权限范围及是否会触发外部请求,确保符合组织安全策略。
  • waf-assessment 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

SKILL.md

Well-Architected Framework Assessment Skill

Evaluate Azure architectures against Microsoft's Well-Architected Framework (WAF) five pillars to identify strengths, risks, and improvement opportunities.

When to Use

  • Assess existing or proposed Azure architectures
  • Validate designs meet WAF best practices
  • Identify architectural risks and gaps
  • Provide scored assessment with recommendations
  • Review before production deployment

Five Pillars Overview

1. Reliability

Ability of the system to recover from failures and continue functioning.

  • Focus: Availability, resiliency, disaster recovery, health monitoring

2. Security

Protecting applications and data from threats.

  • Focus: Identity, network security, encryption, secrets management

3. Cost Optimization

Managing costs to maximize value delivered.

  • Focus: Right-sizing, reserved instances, monitoring, waste elimination

4. Operational Excellence

Operations processes that keep a system running in production.

  • Focus: IaC, CI/CD, monitoring, incident response, automation

5. Performance Efficiency

Ability of a system to adapt to changes in load.

  • Focus: Scaling, caching, CDN, resource selection, optimization

Assessment Process

Step 1: Analyze Architecture

Review the architecture for each pillar:

Reliability Checklist:

  • Availability Zones configured?
  • Multi-region deployment for critical workloads?
  • Health checks and monitoring configured?
  • Auto-healing and circuit breakers implemented?
  • Backup strategy defined with RPO/RTO?
  • Disaster recovery plan documented?

Security Checklist:

  • Managed identities used (no credentials in code)?
  • Private endpoints for PaaS services?
  • HTTPS only with TLS 1.2+?
  • Network security groups with least privilege?
  • Key Vault for secrets management?
  • Azure AD authentication and RBAC configured?
  • Data encrypted at rest and in transit?

Cost Optimization Checklist:

  • Resources right-sized for actual usage?
  • Auto-scaling configured?
  • Reserved instances considered for predictable workloads?
  • Storage tiering implemented (Hot/Cool/Archive)?
  • Unused resources identified?
  • Cost monitoring and alerts configured?

Operational Excellence Checklist:

  • Infrastructure as Code (Bicep/Terraform)?
  • CI/CD pipelines implemented?
  • Application Insights for telemetry?
  • Centralized logging (Log Analytics)?
  • Alerts configured for critical scenarios?
  • Deployment automation and rollback?

Performance Efficiency Checklist:

  • CDN for static content?
  • Caching strategy (Redis, CDN)?
  • Asynchronous processing for long operations?
  • Appropriate compute SKUs selected?
  • Auto-scaling rules defined?
  • Performance testing completed?

Step 2: Score Each Pillar

Use 0-100 scoring system:

Scoring Criteria:

  • 80-100 (Excellent): Meets all best practices, production-ready
  • 60-79 (Good): Meets most practices, minor gaps
  • 40-59 (Fair): Some practices missing, moderate risk
  • 20-39 (Poor): Many gaps, significant improvements needed
  • 0-19 (Critical): Major gaps, not production-ready

Step 3: Provide Recommendations

For each identified gap:

  • Finding: What's missing or problematic
  • Risk: Impact if not addressed
  • Recommendation: Specific action to take
  • Priority: Critical / High / Medium / Low
  • Effort: Hours or days to implement

Assessment Output Format

# Well-Architected Framework Assessment
**Architecture**: [Name]
**Assessment Date**: [Date]
**Overall Score**: [Average of 5 pillars]/100

## Executive Summary
[2-3 sentences on overall health, key strengths, top risks]

## Pillar Scores

| Pillar | Score | Status |
|--------|-------|--------|
| Reliability | 75/100 | 🟢 Good |
| Security | 65/100 | 🟡 Fair |
| Cost Optimization | 80/100 | 🟢 Good |
| Operational Excellence | 70/100 | 🟡 Fair |
| Performance Efficiency | 85/100 | 🟢 Excellent |
| **Overall** | **75/100** | **🟢 Good** |

---

## 1. Reliability (75/100) - 🟢 Good

### Strengths
Availability Zones configured for App Service and Azure SQL
Health checks implemented with automatic failover
Backup strategy defined (RPO: 1 hour, RTO: 4 hours)

### Gaps & Recommendations

#### Finding #1: No Multi-Region Deployment
**Risk**: Regional outage causes complete service unavailability
**Recommendation**: Implement active-passive multi-region with Azure Front Door
**Priority**: High
**Effort**: 3-5 days
**Implementation**: Deploy secondary region (West US), configure Azure Front Door with priority routing

#### Finding #2: Missing Circuit Breaker Pattern
**Risk**: Cascading failures when dependencies are degraded
**Recommendation**: Implement circuit breaker using Polly library
**Priority**: Medium
**Effort**: 1-2 days

---

## 2. Security (65/100) - 🟡 Fair

### Strengths
Azure AD authentication configured
HTTPS enforced with TLS 1.2
Key Vault used for connection strings

### Gaps & Recommendations

#### Finding #1: Service Principal Used Instead of Managed Identity
**Risk**: Credential rotation required, potential secret exposure
**Recommendation**: Replace service principal with system-assigned managed identity
**Priority**: Critical
**Effort**: 4 hours
**Implementation**:
1. Enable managed identity on App Service
2. Grant RBAC permissions to SQL and Key Vault
3. Remove service principal credentials

#### Finding #2: No Private Endpoints
**Risk**: PaaS services exposed to public internet
**Recommendation**: Implement private endpoints for SQL, Storage, Key Vault
**Priority**: High
**Effort**: 1 day

---

## 3-5. [Remaining Pillars Follow Same Structure]

---

## Priority Roadmap

### Critical (Fix Immediately)
1. Replace service principal with managed identity
2. Implement private endpoints for PaaS services

### High (Next 30 Days)
3. Multi-region deployment (active-passive)
4. Infrastructure as Code implementation
5. Implement comprehensive alerting

### Medium (Next 90 Days)
6. Circuit breaker pattern
7. Reserved instances for predictable workloads
8. Performance testing automation

### Low (Future Enhancements)
9. Chaos engineering tests
10. Additional caching layers

---

## Cost Impact Summary
- **Savings Opportunities**: ~$480/month (right-sizing, reserved instances)
- **Security Enhancements**: +$200/month (private endpoints)
- **Multi-Region**: +$850/month (passive region infrastructure)
- **Net Impact**: +$570/month for significantly improved resilience and security

---

## Conclusion
[Summary of assessment with key takeaways and prioritized next steps]

Tips for Effective Assessments

Be Specific: Reference exact resources and configurations Quantify Risk: Use concrete examples of potential impact Actionable Recommendations: Provide implementation steps, not just principles Prioritize Ruthlessly: Help teams focus on what matters most Show Business Impact: Connect technical gaps to business risks Include Quick Wins: Balance strategic improvements with fast fixes Cost-Aware: Show ROI for recommendations (cost vs benefit)

Avoid: Generic advice, overwhelming lists, missing priorities, theoretical recommendations

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

33.77%
按下载量换算30

Claude

29.91%
按下载量换算27

Cursor

18.39%
按下载量换算17

Gemini CLI

9.89%
按下载量换算9

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

external-service

该 Skill 可能调用第三方服务、云服务或外部模型 API,使用前需要确认账号、额度、数据发送范围和服务条款。

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