# Security > On-demand security review skill for Scenescape — code and configuration security guidance. - Skill: `open-edge-platform/security` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add open-edge-platform/security` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/open-edge-platform/security/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Security - Author: open-edge-platform (https://skillmd.com/u/open-edge-platform) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/open-edge-platform/security --- # Security Review Skill (On-Demand) ## Purpose This document defines on-demand security review guidance for code and configuration changes. It complements the always-on secure-by-default rules defined in `.github/copilot-instructions.md`. This skill applies only at development and authoring time. Runtime, host, cluster, or organizational security controls are explicitly out of scope. --- ## Security Review Trigger Points Load this security review skill when changes involve: - Authentication, session, or token logic - Authorization or resource ownership checks - Input parsing, validation, normalization, or canonicalization - File handling, deserialization, template rendering, or process execution - Logging, telemetry, secrets handling, or sensitive data paths - Dependency upgrades, lockfile changes, or CVE-related updates - Dockerfile or container base image changes - Docker Compose, Helm charts, or Kubernetes-related configuration - CI/CD workflow changes affecting build, test, release, or scanning - Privilege elevation, root execution, host mounts, or new Linux capabilities --- ## AI-Generated Code Guardrails When reviewing AI-generated changes: - Treat AI output as untrusted draft code until reviewed and tested - Verify package names, APIs, images, and tools exist and originate from trusted sources - Reject suggestions that bypass or disable security controls for convenience - Require pinned versions and lockfiles for generated dependencies; prefer integrity-verified installs when supported - Never accept generated code or configs that inject secrets via source files, Dockerfile `ARG`/`ENV`, or committed templates - Reject generated install scripts that use unchecked remote execution patterns (e.g., `curl | sh`) without checksum or signature verification - Reject generated build commands that disable TLS, certificate verification, or security checks to make builds pass - Apply RCI pattern: ask the AI to review its own output for security issues, then improve; repeat 1-2 iterations --- ## Secure Code Review (OSS Context) Apply when reviewing application logic, services, APIs, or libraries. ### Input handling - Validate input at trust boundaries (format, type, range, length) - Avoid unsafe deserialization - Do not propagate unvalidated input across trust boundaries - Avoid command, query, or expression construction via string concatenation - Use parameterized queries for all database access ### Authorization - **Keep authorization checks server-side and close to protected actions or resources** - Do not rely on client-side enforcement for access control ### Error handling - Errors must not expose sensitive internal details - Avoid ignored return values or silent failures ### Memory & resource safety (where applicable) - Avoid unchecked allocations and unbounded resource use - Ensure files, sockets, and handles are closed deterministically ### Logging & telemetry - Do not log credentials, tokens, secrets, or PII - Logs should be actionable without exposing sensitive data ### Dynamic execution - **Avoid unsafe dynamic execution patterns (`eval`, `exec`, reflection, or untrusted code execution).** ### Dependency usage - Avoid shelling out when native APIs or libraries exist - Flag outdated, unmaintained, or suspicious dependencies - Prefer latest stable versions; specify exact or range-locked versions ### OSS-specific review checks - Is externally observable **security-relevant behavior** documented? - Are assumptions and limitations stated explicitly for users? If uncertainty exists, flag it clearly rather than guessing or assuming safety. --- ## Container Artifact Review (Development-Time) Apply when generating or reviewing: - Dockerfiles / Containerfiles - docker-compose.yml - Helm charts (templates and values) ### Dockerfile - Avoid `latest` or floating tags; pin versions or digests - Prefer minimal base images - Ensure containers do not run as root - Avoid setuid or setgid binaries - Use multi-stage builds and remove build tools, package caches, and temp files from final image - Prefer `COPY` over `ADD` - Never embed secrets in `ARG`, `ENV`, or filesystem layers ### Docker Compose - Avoid `privileged: true` and host networking unless explicitly justified - Do not mount the Docker socket - Restrict host filesystem mounts - Limit exposed ports and networks; prefer internal networks Concerns that depend on deployment or runtime policy should be flagged as: **"Deployment-time responsibility."** --- ## Helm / Kubernetes Review (Development-Time) - Default to `runAsNonRoot: true` - Set `allowPrivilegeEscalation: false` - Prefer read-only root filesystem where feasible - Drop unnecessary Linux capabilities - Do not template secrets directly into charts - Document required runtime security assumptions Do not enforce cluster-wide, node-level, or runtime security controls. --- ## Review Output Expectations - Identify which section applies (Code / Container / Helm) - Classify findings as: - Fix in artifact - Deployment/runtime responsibility - Explicitly state assumptions or uncertainty - Use severity levels: Critical / High / Medium / Low with confidence: High / Medium / Low - Include specific file/function references and recommended fixes Security review is advisory; final decisions belong to maintainers. --- ## Language-Specific Guidance For language-specific secure coding patterns, refer to: - `.github/skills/intel-secure-cpp-specifics.md` — C++ secure coding practices - `.github/skills/intel-secure-python-specifics.md` — Python secure coding practices