Vulnerability Scanner V3

Vulnerability Scanner

Overview

This public intake copy packages plugins/antigravity-bundle-security-engineer/skills/vulnerability-scanner from https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses the external_source block in metadata.json plus ORIGIN.md as the provenance anchor for review.

Vulnerability Scanner > Think like an attacker, defend like an expert. 2025 threat landscape awareness.

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: 🔧 Runtime Scripts, 1. Security Expert Mindset, 2. OWASP Top 10:2025, 3. Supply Chain Security (A03), 4. Attack Surface Mapping, 5. Risk Prioritization.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

• This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview.
• Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: Advanced vulnerability analysis principles. OWASP 2025, Supply Chain Security, attack surface mapping, risk prioritization.
• Use when the operator should preserve upstream workflow detail instead of rewriting the process from scratch.
• Use when provenance needs to stay visible in the answer, PR, or review packet.
• Use when copied upstream references, examples, or scripts materially improve the answer.
• Use when the workflow should remain reviewable in the public intake repo before the private enhancer takes over.

Operating Table

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. Confirm the user goal, the scope of the imported workflow, and whether this skill is still the right router for the task.
2. Read the overview and provenance files before loading any copied upstream support files.
3. Load only the references, examples, prompts, or scripts that materially change the outcome for the current request.
4. Execute the upstream workflow while keeping provenance and source boundaries explicit in the working notes.
5. Validate the result against the upstream expectations and the evidence you can point to in the copied files.
6. Escalate or hand off to a related skill when the work moves out of this imported workflow's center of gravity.
7. Before merge or closure, record what was used, what changed, and what the reviewer still needs to verify.

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: 🔧 Runtime Scripts

Execute for automated validation:

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @vulnerability-scanner-v3 to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @vulnerability-scanner-v3 against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @vulnerability-scanner-v3 for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @vulnerability-scanner-v3 using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

• What? - Clear vulnerability description
• Where? - Exact location (file, line, endpoint)
• Why? - Root cause explanation
• Impact? - Business consequence
• How to fix? - Specific remediation
• Severity - Criteria
• Critical - RCE, auth bypass, mass data exposure

Imported Operating Notes

Imported: 11. Reporting Principles

Finding Structure

Each finding should answer:

1. What? - Clear vulnerability description
2. Where? - Exact location (file, line, endpoint)
3. Why? - Root cause explanation
4. Impact? - Business consequence
5. How to fix? - Specific remediation

Severity Classification

Remember: Vulnerability scanning finds issues. Expert thinking prioritizes what matters. Always ask: "What would an attacker do with this?"

Troubleshooting

Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in plugins/antigravity-bundle-security-engineer/skills/vulnerability-scanner, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all. Solution: Re-open metadata.json, ORIGIN.md, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Check the external_source block first, then restate the provenance before continuing.

Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated SKILL.md, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task. Solution: Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.

Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.

Related Skills

• @competitive-landscape-v3 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @competitor-alternatives-v3 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @copywriting-v3 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @cpp-pro-v3 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

• security_scan.py
• checklists.md
• security_scan.py

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: 📋 Reference Files

Imported: 1. Security Expert Mindset

Core Principles

Threat Modeling Questions

Before scanning, ask:

1. What are we protecting? (Assets)
2. Who would attack? (Threat actors)
3. How would they attack? (Attack vectors)
4. What's the impact? (Business risk)

Imported: 2. OWASP Top 10:2025

Risk Categories

2025 Key Changes

2021 → 2025 Shifts:
├── SSRF merged into A01 (Access Control)
├── A02 elevated (Cloud/Container configs)
├── A03 NEW: Supply Chain (major focus)
├── A10 NEW: Exceptional Conditions
└── Focus shift: Root causes > Symptoms

Imported: 3. Supply Chain Security (A03)

Attack Surface

Defense Principles

• Verify package integrity (checksums)
• Pin versions, audit updates
• Use private registries for critical deps
• Sign and verify artifacts

Imported: 4. Attack Surface Mapping

What to Map

Prioritization Matrix

Risk = Likelihood × Impact

High Impact + High Likelihood → CRITICAL
High Impact + Low Likelihood  → HIGH
Low Impact + High Likelihood  → MEDIUM
Low Impact + Low Likelihood   → LOW

Imported: 5. Risk Prioritization

CVSS + Context

Prioritization Decision Tree

Is it actively exploited (EPSS >0.5)?
├── YES → CRITICAL: Immediate action
└── NO → Check CVSS
         ├── CVSS ≥9.0 → HIGH
         ├── CVSS 7.0-8.9 → Consider asset value
         └── CVSS <7.0 → Schedule for later

Imported: 6. Exceptional Conditions (A10 - New)

Fail-Open vs Fail-Closed

What to Check

• Exception handlers that catch-all and ignore
• Missing error handling on security operations
• Race conditions in auth/authz
• Resource exhaustion scenarios

Imported: 7. Scanning Methodology

Phase-Based Approach

1. RECONNAISSANCE
   └── Understand the target
       ├── Technology stack
       ├── Entry points
       └── Data flows

2. DISCOVERY
   └── Identify potential issues
       ├── Configuration review
       ├── Dependency analysis
       └── Code pattern search

3. ANALYSIS
   └── Validate and prioritize
       ├── False positive elimination
       ├── Risk scoring
       └── Attack chain mapping

4. REPORTING
   └── Actionable findings
       ├── Clear reproduction steps
       ├── Business impact
       └── Remediation guidance

Imported: 8. Code Pattern Analysis

High-Risk Patterns

Secret Patterns

Imported: 9. Cloud Security Considerations

Shared Responsibility

Cloud-Specific Checks

• IAM: Least privilege applied?
• Storage: Public buckets?
• Network: Security groups tightened?
• Secrets: Using secrets manager?

Imported: 10. Anti-Patterns

Imported: Limitations

• Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.