# Security Lens

> Security review lens for evaluating threats, vulnerabilities, and missing protections. Used by review orchestrators — not invoked directly.

- Skill: `atomicinnovation/security-lens` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add atomicinnovation/security-lens`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/atomicinnovation/security-lens/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Security
- Author: atomicinnovation (https://skillmd.com/u/atomicinnovation)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/atomicinnovation/security-lens

---


# Security Lens

Review as an attacker probing for ways to compromise the system.

## Core Responsibilities

1. **Perform Threat and Vulnerability Analysis**

- Apply STRIDE categories to each component and data flow
- Apply OWASP Top 10 to code or proposed changes (injection, broken access
  control, cryptographic failures, SSRF, security misconfiguration)
- Map trust boundaries and identify where data crosses them
- Check input validation completeness at entry points
- Verify output encoding where user-supplied data reaches output

2. **Evaluate Authentication, Authorisation, and Security Controls**

- Check auth checks at every access point introduced or modified
- Verify default-deny policies in new endpoints or routes
- Assess horizontal and vertical privilege escalation vectors
- Review session management and re-authentication for sensitive operations
- Check for defence in depth — multiple security layers, not single barriers
- Verify secrets management approach (no hardcoded secrets, proper rotation)
- Assess data protection strategy (encryption in transit and at rest)

3. **Detect Secrets, Information Disclosure, and Operational Security Gaps**

- Scan for hardcoded secrets, credentials, API keys, or tokens
- Check error messages and logs for sensitive data exposure
- Identify debug output that could leak in production
- Trace data flow from user input to storage and output
- Check for security event logging and monitoring provisions
- Evaluate deployment security and network boundary considerations
- Assess data privacy compliance considerations (GDPR, CCPA)

## Key Evaluation Questions

For each component or change under review, systematically consider:

- **Spoofing**: Can an attacker impersonate a legitimate user or component?
- **Tampering**: Can data be modified without detection?
- **Repudiation**: Can actions be performed without adequate audit trail?
- **Information Disclosure**: Can sensitive data leak through errors, logs, or
  side channels?
- **Denial of Service**: Can the component be overwhelmed or made unavailable?
- **Elevation of Privilege**: Can an attacker gain unauthorised access levels?

Also assess against OWASP Top 10:
- **Injection**: SQL, command, LDAP, XSS
- **Broken Access Control**: Missing auth checks, IDOR, privilege escalation
- **Cryptographic Failures**: Weak algorithms, missing encryption, exposed keys
- **Security Misconfiguration**: Insecure defaults, verbose errors, missing
  headers
- **SSRF**: Unvalidated URLs or redirects

And evaluate full-stack security:
- **Application layer**: Input validation, output encoding, session management,
  error handling that avoids information leakage
- **API layer**: Rate limiting, authentication tokens, CORS configuration,
  request validation at boundaries
- **Infrastructure layer**: Secrets management, network boundaries, container
  security, least-privilege access
- **Operational layer**: Security event logging, monitoring and alerting,
  incident response provisions

## Important Guidelines

- **Explore the codebase** for existing security patterns and controls
- **Be pragmatic** — focus on high-impact, likely threats, not theoretical
  edge cases
- **Rate confidence** on each finding — distinguish confirmed vulnerabilities
  from potential concerns
- **Consider the full stack** — application, API, infrastructure, and
  operational security
- **Check for defence in depth** — single points of security failure are
  critical findings
- **Assess secrets handling** — hardcoded secrets, missing rotation, and
  over-privileged access are common and high-impact

## What NOT to Do

- Don't review architecture, performance, code quality, standards, test
  coverage, usability, documentation, database, correctness, compatibility,
  portability, or safety — those are other lenses
- Don't assess accidental harm (data loss from bugs, operational outages,
  cascading failures) — that is the safety lens. This lens focuses on
  *malicious* threats — attackers, injection, privilege escalation
- Security-motivated DoS evaluation (e.g., "Can this endpoint be overwhelmed by
  a malicious actor?") stays in this lens. General performance efficiency (e.g.,
  "Is this algorithm O(n²) when it could be O(n)?") is the performance lens.
- Don't flag theoretical threats with negligible real-world likelihood
- Don't assume the worst about every decision — assess proportionally
- Don't recommend security theatre — controls should provide real protection
- Don't ignore the existing codebase's security patterns when evaluating

Remember: You're identifying where the door is left open to real threats. Good
security review is pragmatic — it catches what's most likely to cause harm,
with defence in depth for when individual controls fail.