# Harness Security Scan

> Harness Security Scan

- Skill: `intense-visions/harness-security-scan` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add intense-visions/harness-security-scan`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/intense-visions/harness-security-scan/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Security
- Author: Intense-Visions (https://skillmd.com/u/intense-visions)
- Updated: 2026-09-21
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/intense-visions/harness-security-scan

---

# Harness Security Scan

> Lightweight mechanical security scan. Fast triage, not deep review.

## When to Use

- As part of the codebase-health-analyst sweep
- For quick security triage on a project or changed files
- On scheduled cron runs for continuous security coverage
- NOT for deep security review (use harness-security-review)
- NOT for threat modeling (use harness-security-review --deep)

## Process

### Phase 1: SCAN — Run Mechanical Scanner

1. **Resolve project root.** Use provided path or cwd.

2. **Load security config.** Read `harness.config.json` and extract `security`
   section. Fall back to defaults if absent.

3. **Determine file scope.**
   - If `--changed-only` or triggered by PR: run `git diff --name-only HEAD~1`
     to get changed files. Filter to source files only (exclude node_modules,
     dist, test files per config).
   - Otherwise: scan all source files in the project.

4. **Run SecurityScanner.** Call `SecurityScanner.scanFiles()` from
   `@harness-engineering/core`.

5. **Filter by severity threshold.** Remove findings below the configured
   threshold:
   - `error`: only errors
   - `warning`: errors and warnings (default)
   - `info`: all findings

6. **Check security trends.** Check `get_security_trends` to compare current scan results against the project's security posture history and identify trajectory changes.

7. **Output report.** Present findings grouped by severity:

   ```
   Security Scan: [PASS/FAIL]
   Scanned: N files, M rules applied
   Errors: N | Warnings: N | Info: N

   [List findings with rule ID, file:line, severity, message, remediation]
   ```

## Gates

- **Error-severity findings are blocking.** Report is FAIL if any error-severity
  finding exists after filtering.
- **No AI review.** This skill is mechanical only. Do not perform OWASP analysis
  or threat modeling.

## Harness Integration

- **`harness check-security`** — CLI command that invokes this skill's scanner.
- **`SecurityScanner`** — Core class from `@harness-engineering/core` that executes the rule engine. Its injection rule set (`SEC-INJ-*`) is the load-bearing enforcement of the `owasp-injection-prevention` domain skill's concrete anti-patterns — `eval`/`Function`, SQL string concatenation, command injection, and Prisma `$queryRawUnsafe`/`$executeRawUnsafe` called with interpolated input. Deep injection classes that need data-flow (NoSQL operator injection, second-order injection) are intentionally out of scope for this mechanical scan and belong to `/harness:security-review`.
- **`harness.config.json`** — Security section configures severity threshold and file exclusions.
- **codebase-health-analyst persona** — Invokes this skill as part of its sweep.

## Evidence Requirements

When this skill makes claims about existing code, architecture, or behavior,
it MUST cite evidence using one of:

1. **File reference:** `file:line` format (e.g., `src/auth.ts:42`)
2. **Code pattern reference:** `file` with description (e.g., `src/utils/hash.ts` —
   "existing bcrypt wrapper")
3. **Test/command output:** Inline or referenced output from a test run or CLI command
4. **Session evidence:** Write to the `evidence` session section via `manage_state`

**Uncited claims:** Technical assertions without citations MUST be prefixed with
`[UNVERIFIED]`. Example: `[UNVERIFIED] The auth middleware supports refresh tokens`.

## Red Flags

### Universal

These apply to ALL skills. If you catch yourself doing any of these, STOP.

- **"I believe the codebase does X"** — Stop. Read the code and cite a file:line
  reference. Belief is not evidence.
- **"Let me recommend [pattern] for this"** without checking existing patterns — Stop.
  Search the codebase first. The project may already have a convention.
- **"While we're here, we should also [unrelated improvement]"** — Stop. Flag the idea
  but do not expand scope beyond the stated task.

### Domain-Specific

- **"This finding is in test code, so it's not a real issue"** — Stop. Test code can leak secrets, establish bad patterns, and be copy-pasted to production.
- **"This dependency is widely used, so it's safe"** — Stop. Popularity is not a security guarantee. Check CVE databases and advisory feeds.
- **"This is a low-severity finding, skipping"** — Stop. Low-severity findings compound. Document why you are deprioritizing, do not silently skip.
- **"The scanner didn't flag it, so it's clean"** — Stop. Scanners have false negatives. A clean scan is not proof of security — it is absence of evidence.

## Rationalizations to Reject

### Universal

These reasoning patterns sound plausible but lead to bad outcomes. Reject them.

- **"It's probably fine"** — "Probably" is not evidence. Verify before asserting.
- **"This is best practice"** — Best practice in what context? Cite the source and
  confirm it applies to this codebase.
- **"We can fix it later"** — If it is worth flagging, it is worth documenting now
  with a concrete follow-up plan.

### Domain-Specific

| Rationalization                     | Reality                                                                                            |
| ----------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| "No attacker would find this"       | Security by obscurity. If the code is wrong, flag it regardless of discoverability.                |
| "We're behind a firewall"           | Network boundaries change. Code should be secure at every layer regardless of deployment topology. |
| "The framework handles this for us" | Verify the framework's actual behavior. Misuse of a secure framework is still insecure.            |

## Escalation

- **When error-severity findings are disputed:** The scanner is mechanical — it may flag false positives. If a finding is a false positive, add a `// harness-ignore SEC-XXX` comment on the line and document the rationale. Do not suppress without explanation.
- **When the scanner misses a known vulnerability:** This skill runs pattern-based rules only. For semantic analysis (taint tracking, control flow), use `/harness:security-review` instead.
- **When scan is too slow on large codebases:** Use `--changed-only` to scope to recently changed files. Full scans can run on a scheduled cron instead.

## Success Criteria

- Scanner ran and produced findings (or confirmed clean)
- Findings are filtered by the configured severity threshold
- Report follows the structured format
- Exit code reflects pass/fail status

## Examples

### Example: Clean Scan

```
Security Scan: PASS
Scanned: 42 files, 12 rules applied
Errors: 0 | Warnings: 0 | Info: 0
```

### Example: Findings Detected

```
Security Scan: FAIL
Scanned: 42 files, 12 rules applied
Errors: 1 | Warnings: 2 | Info: 0

[SEC-SECRET-001] src/config.ts:15 (error)
  Hardcoded API key detected: `const API_KEY = "sk-..."`
  Remediation: Move to environment variable, use dotenv or secrets manager.

[SEC-NET-001] src/cors.ts:5 (warning)
  CORS wildcard origin: `origin: "*"`
  Remediation: Restrict to specific allowed origins.

[SEC-CRYPTO-001] src/auth.ts:22 (warning)
  Weak hash algorithm: `crypto.createHash("md5")`
  Remediation: Use SHA-256 or stronger.
```