Agent skill

Security and Hardening

by addyosmani in addyosmani/agent-skills

Applies a threat-model-first approach to web code that handles untrusted input, authentication, data storage, dependencies or personal data.

MITAuto-check: notesSecurity

Install Security and Hardening

skills CLI
$ npx skills add addyosmani/agent-skills --skill security-and-hardening -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install addyosmani/agent-skills security-and-hardening --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/addyosmani/agent-skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/security-and-hardening .claude/skills/security-and-hardening && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
security-and-hardening
GitHub stars
105k
Used in
1 other repo
Token cost
~4.4k tokens
SKILL.md length
2,214 words
Files
2 (incl. references)
Skills in repo
12
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

Applies a threat-model-first approach to web code that handles untrusted input, authentication, data storage, dependencies or personal data.

  • Works in 3 steps: Map the trust boundaries. Where does… → Name the assets. What's worth stealing… → Run STRIDE over each boundary — a quick…
  • Building a feature that accepts user input or handles sessions
  • SKILL.md covers Overview, When to Use, Process: Threat Model First and The Three-Tier Boundary System, plus 5 more sections
  • Calls npm and pnpm

What it does

The skill begins with the stance that every external input is hostile and every authorization check mandatory. Before adding controls, the agent maps trust boundaries, including HTTP requests, form fields, uploads, webhooks, third-party APIs, queues, LLM output and local values such as another process's command line or a path in a job payload. It names the assets worth protecting, runs a STRIDE pass over each boundary with the usual mitigations, and writes abuse cases next to use cases so the first test is a misuse attempt.

It frames missing design work as OWASP A04, Insecure Design, and goes on to a three-tier boundary system whose details are cut off in the excerpt. The description also covers auditing an input handler or login flow against the OWASP Top Ten, triaging package audit findings, assessing supply-chain risk in a new package, and personal-data work under GDPR or CCPA. A reference file holds hardening patterns.

When your agent uses it

  • Building a feature that accepts user input or handles sessions
  • Reviewing a login flow or input handler against the OWASP Top Ten
  • Triaging dependency audit findings or judging a new package's supply-chain risk
  • Adding file uploads, webhooks or payment handling

Example prompts

  • “Threat-model the new file upload endpoint and list the abuse cases I should test first.”
  • “Audit this login flow for OWASP Top Ten issues.”
  • “npm audit reports several high findings, triage which ones matter for our service.”

Workflow steps

3 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.

  1. Map the trust boundaries. Where does untrusted data cross into your system? HTTP requests, form fields, file uploads, webhooks…
  2. Name the assets. What's worth stealing or breaking? Credentials, PII, payment data, admin actions, money movement.
  3. Run STRIDE over each boundary — a quick lens, not a ceremony

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 1be8e34. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    Shell commands in SKILL.md call:

    • npm
    • pnpm

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    Links to these hosts (documentation or services it may open):

    • genai.owasp.org

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Security and Hardening loads about 4.4k tokens when it runs, and up to ~7.6k if it reads all its reference files. Until then it costs about 151 tokens; SKILL.md has 2,214 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~151
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~4.4k
With references · SKILL.md plus every file in references/, read only if the agent opens them
~7.6k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check: notes

The automated check noted patterns worth knowing about, such as sudo or a known installer.

  • NoteMentions a .env fileSKILL.md:129
    e` is committed with placeholders; real `.env*` files and key material are gitignored; grep the staged diff before commi

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from addyosmani/agent-skills at commit 1be8e34, republished under its MIT licence (© addyosmani). 2,214 words, ~4,383 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/security-and-hardening/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder). This skill also uses 1 other file; get the full folder from GitHub.
name
security-and-hardening
description
Hardens code against vulnerabilities. Use when auditing an input handler for vulnerabilities, when handling user input, authentication, data storage, or external integrations, or when checking a login flow is safe against the OWASP Top Ten. Use when building any feature that accepts untrusted data, manages user sessions, or interacts with third-party services. Use when auditing dependencies for known vulnerabilities, triaging package-manager audit findings, or assessing supply-chain risk in a new package. Use when personal data or privacy compliance (GDPR, CCPA) is involved.

Security and Hardening

Overview

Security-first development practices for web applications. Treat every external input as hostile, every secret as sacred, and every authorization check as mandatory. Security isn't a phase — it's a constraint on every line of code that touches user data, authentication, or external systems.

When to Use

  • Building anything that accepts user input
  • Implementing authentication or authorization
  • Storing or transmitting sensitive data
  • Integrating with external APIs or services
  • Adding file uploads, webhooks, or callbacks
  • Handling payment or PII data

Process: Threat Model First

Controls bolted on without a threat model are guesses. Before hardening, spend five minutes thinking like an attacker:

  1. Map the trust boundaries. Where does untrusted data cross into your system? HTTP requests, form fields, file uploads, webhooks, third-party APIs, message queues, and LLM output — plus the local values that look internal because the OS handed them to you: another process's command line or environment, filenames on a shared volume, a path in a job payload. Trust follows who wrote a value, not which channel delivered it. Every boundary is attack surface.
  2. Name the assets. What's worth stealing or breaking? Credentials, PII, payment data, admin actions, money movement.
  3. Run STRIDE over each boundary — a quick lens, not a ceremony:
ThreatAskTypical mitigation
SpoofingCan someone impersonate a user/service?Authentication, signature verification
TamperingCan data be altered in transit or at rest?Integrity checks, parameterized queries, HTTPS
RepudiationCan an action be denied later?Audit logging of security events
Information disclosureCan data leak?Encryption, field allowlists, generic errors
Denial of serviceCan it be overwhelmed?Rate limiting, input size caps, timeouts
Elevation of privilegeCan a user gain rights they shouldn't?Authorization checks, least privilege
  1. Write abuse cases next to use cases. For each feature, ask "how would I misuse this?" — then make that your first test.

If you can't name the trust boundaries for a feature, you're not ready to secure it. This is OWASP A04: Insecure Design — most breaches begin in design, not code.

The Three-Tier Boundary System

Always Do (No Exceptions)
  • Validate all external input at the system boundary (API routes, form handlers)
  • Parameterize all database queries — never concatenate user input into SQL
  • Encode output to prevent XSS (use framework auto-escaping, don't bypass it)
  • Use HTTPS for all external communication
  • Hash passwords with bcrypt/scrypt/argon2 (never store plaintext)
  • Set security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options)
  • Use httpOnly, secure, sameSite cookies for sessions
  • Run the detected package manager's native audit against the committed lockfile before every release
Ask First (Requires Human Approval)
  • Adding new authentication flows or changing auth logic
  • Storing new categories of sensitive data (PII, payment info)
  • Adding new external service integrations
  • Changing CORS configuration
  • Adding file upload handlers
  • Modifying rate limiting or throttling
  • Granting elevated permissions or roles
Never Do
  • Never commit secrets to version control (API keys, passwords, tokens)
  • Never log sensitive data (passwords, tokens, full credit card numbers)
  • Never trust client-side validation as a security boundary
  • Never disable security headers for convenience
  • Never use eval() or innerHTML with user-provided data
  • Never store sessions in client-accessible storage (localStorage for auth tokens)
  • Never expose stack traces or internal error details to users

Hardening Controls

The rules below are the workflow; a concrete implementation of each lives in references/hardening-patterns.md. Open the section you need when you reach that code, not before.

Injection, XSS, and access control
  • Parameterize every query. Never build SQL, NoSQL, or shell commands from input strings.
  • Encode output through the framework's auto-escaping. If raw HTML is unavoidable, sanitize with an allowlist sanitizer first.
  • Check authorization on every request, not just authentication: the authenticated user must own, or be permitted on, the specific resource (A01, IDOR).

Patterns: Injection, XSS, Access control.

Authentication and sessions
  • Hash passwords with bcrypt (≥12 rounds), scrypt, or argon2. The session secret comes from the environment, never from code.
  • Session cookies are httpOnly, secure, and sameSite: 'lax' or 'strict' (the CSRF defense; 'none' sends the cookie on cross-site requests), with a bounded maxAge.

Pattern: Authentication.

Headers, CORS, and responses
  • Security headers on every response (helmet or the framework equivalent); CSP starts from default-src 'self' and is tightened, not loosened.
  • CORS restricted to an explicit origin list from configuration. Never * with credentials.
  • Strip sensitive fields (passwordHash, reset tokens) before any response. Error bodies are generic; internals go to server logs only.

Patterns: Misconfiguration, Sensitive data exposure.

Input validation and uploads
  • Validate at the boundary with a schema: allowlisted shape, lengths, enums, formats. Reject with 422 and structured details; downstream code uses only the parsed, typed value.
  • Uploads: allowlist MIME types, cap size, verify content (magic bytes) when it matters. The extension proves nothing.

Patterns: Schema validation, File upload.

Server-side fetches (SSRF)

Any URL the user influences — webhooks, import-from-URL, image proxies, link previews — can be aimed at internal services. Allowlist scheme and host, resolve all DNS records and reject any private or reserved address (loopback, link-local 169.254.169.254, private, unique-local, for IPv4 and IPv6), and forbid redirects. That check still has a DNS-rebinding TOCTOU gap: for high-risk surfaces, pin the resolved IP or put a filtering agent in front.

Pattern: SSRF.

Destructive operations on derived paths

A delete, move, or overwrite is only as safe as the value naming its target, and trust follows who wrote that value, not which channel delivered it: another process's command line is as attacker-controlled as a form field. A shape check proves well-formedness, not authorization. Before the call, require all three: the resolved target (symlinks resolved) sits under an allowlisted root; it is at least one level below that root; and it carries ownership evidence read before the operation. On refusal, log the rejected target and stop; never fall back to a broader default path.

Why the check is weaker than it reads (marker self-attestation, check/use races): Destructive paths. Worked code: ../../references/security-checklist.md.

Rate limiting

Limit the API generally and auth endpoints strictly (about 10 attempts per 15 minutes). Once more than one process serves traffic, in-memory counters silently become max × instances, or never fire on serverless: back the limiter with a shared store.

Pattern: Rate limiting.

Secrets

Secrets come from the environment. .env.example is committed with placeholders; real .env* files and key material are gitignored; grep the staged diff before committing. A secret that reaches a remote is compromised the moment it lands: rotate it first, then purge history.

Pattern: Secrets management.

Dependencies and supply chain
  1. Find the installation boundary and manager. Use the workspace root that owns the lockfile, or an independent nested project only when it is outside that workspace. Corroborate packageManager (when present), the lockfile, and CI; stop on disagreement or competing lockfiles. Pin the manager version.
  2. Block dependency scripts before first execution. Bootstrap with scripts disabled or a documented fail-closed policy, inspect the pending script source, approve only the minimum, commit the policy, then verify with a clean frozen/immutable install. Never blanket-approve.
  3. Run the native audit against the committed lockfile before every release. Triage critical/high by reachability (runtime, build, test, deploy paths) and fix availability. Never apply forced remediation (npm audit fix --force or equivalent) automatically, since forced fixes may cross declared dependency ranges; preview, read changelogs, test each upgrade. Document every deferral with a reason and a review date.
  4. Audits only match known advisories. They do not catch a newly malicious or typosquatted package (cross-env vs crossenv). Review new dependencies, lockfile diffs, and script-policy changes together: ownership, maintenance, release age, provenance, transitive graph. Verify registry signatures where supported (npm audit signatures, pnpm audit signatures) and treat their absence as a signal to investigate, not automatic proof of compromise (A06, LLM03).

Triage decision tree: Dependency audit triage. Manager matrix and install-script gate: ../../references/security-checklist.md.

Show full SKILL.md (942 more words)Show less
Personal data and privacy

Hardening asks "can an attacker read it?" Privacy asks "should we hold it at all, and for how long?" The cheapest data to protect, breach, and comply over is the data you never collected; treat personal data as a liability to minimize.

  • Classify fields as you add them (non-personal, PII, sensitive) and handle each class accordingly. You cannot protect, or honor a deletion request for, data you cannot find.
  • Collect only against a stated purpose. "Might be useful later" is latent breach scope, not a purpose. Keep PII out of telemetry (the observability-and-instrumentation skill makes the same point from the ops side).
  • Set retention up front, then actually delete. Every personal-data store needs a TTL and a working deletion path, including backups, caches, search indexes, and analytics copies.
  • Support the data-subject rights your jurisdiction requires (GDPR, CCPA, and kin): export, correct, delete. Design the schema so a user's data is findable and erasable, not smeared irreversibly across systems.
  • Consent gates collection and third-party sharing, and is auditable. Sending PII to an analytics, ad, or LLM vendor is sharing; the vendor needs a data-processing agreement. Make region a configurable policy, not a hardcoded assumption.

Classification table: Data classification. A privacy incident starts the breach-notification clock; run the postmortem with the debugging-and-error-recovery skill.

AI / LLM features

Calling an LLM — chatbots, summarizers, agents, RAG — adds a new attack surface; map it to the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications (2025):

  • Model output is untrusted input (LLM05). Never into eval, SQL, a shell, innerHTML, or a file path; parse defensively, validate against a schema, then encode.
  • Prompts can be hijacked (LLM01). Untrusted text in the context — a user message, a fetched page, a PDF — can carry instructions. The system prompt is not a security boundary; enforce permissions in code.
  • Keep secrets, other tenants' data, and the full system prompt out of the context window (LLM02, LLM07); scope tool permissions, validate every tool argument, and confirm destructive actions (LLM06); cap tokens, request rate, and recursion depth (LLM10); partition RAG embeddings per tenant and validate documents before indexing (LLM08).

Pattern: LLM output handling.

Review Checklist

Before sign-off, walk ../../references/security-checklist.md: it covers authentication, authorization, input, data protection and privacy, headers and CORS, dependencies and supply chain, AI/LLM, and error handling, plus the OWASP quick-reference tables.

Common Rationalizations

RationalizationReality
"This is an internal tool, security doesn't matter"Internal tools get compromised. Attackers target the weakest link.
"We'll add security later"Security retrofitting is 10x harder than building it in. Add it now.
"No one would try to exploit this"Automated scanners will find it. Security by obscurity is not security.
"The framework handles security"Frameworks provide tools, not guarantees. You still need to use them correctly.
"It's just a prototype"Prototypes become production. Security habits from day one.
"Threat modeling is overkill here"Five minutes of "how would I attack this?" prevents the design flaws no control can patch later.
"It's just LLM output, it's only text"That "text" can be a SQL statement, a script tag, or a shell command. Treat it like any untrusted input.
"The audit passed, so the dependency is safe"Audits match known advisories. They do not detect a newly malicious package or make unreviewed install scripts safe to execute.
"Collect it now, we might need it later"Data you don't hold can't be breached, subpoenaed, or mis-deleted. "Might need it" is breach scope, not a purpose.
"We'll handle deletion requests manually"Manual erasure misses backups, caches, and analytics copies. If the schema can't find a user's data, you can't honor the request — design for it.
"Compliance is legal's problem, not ours"Export, deletion, retention, and consent are schema and code. Legal can't bolt them on after you've smeared PII across ten systems.

Red Flags

  • User input passed directly to database queries, shell commands, or HTML rendering
  • A delete, move, or overwrite whose target comes from a payload, a config value, or another process's command line, guarded only by a shape check on the path
  • Secrets in source code or commit history
  • API endpoints without authentication or authorization checks
  • Missing CORS configuration or wildcard (*) origins
  • No rate limiting on authentication endpoints, or an in-memory limiter in front of more than one instance
  • Stack traces or internal errors exposed to users
  • Dependencies with known critical vulnerabilities, competing lockfiles at one installation boundary, non-reproducible installs, or blanket-approved scripts
  • Server fetches user-supplied URLs without an allowlist (SSRF)
  • LLM/model output passed into a query, the DOM, a shell, or eval
  • Secrets, PII, or the full system prompt placed inside an LLM context window
  • Personal data collected with no stated purpose, retention limit, or deletion path
  • PII sent to analytics/ad/LLM vendors with no consent or data-processing agreement
  • "Delete my account" that only flips a flag while the personal data lingers in stores and backups

Verification

After implementing security-relevant code:

  • The native audit has no unmitigated reachable critical/high findings; CI preserves the authoritative lockfile and blocks unreviewed dependency scripts
  • No secrets in source code or git history
  • All user input validated at system boundaries
  • Destructive filesystem operations resolve symlinks, then verify allowlisted root, minimum depth, and ownership before running
  • Authentication and authorization checked on every protected endpoint
  • Security headers present in response (check with browser DevTools)
  • Error responses don't expose internal details
  • Rate limiting active on auth endpoints, backed by a shared store when more than one instance serves traffic
  • Server-side URL fetches validated against an allowlist (no SSRF)
  • LLM/model output validated and encoded before use (if AI features present)
  • Personal data is classified, minimized to a stated purpose, and has a retention limit
  • Deletion and export requests work end-to-end (including backups, caches, and analytics copies)

© addyosmani, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

SKILL.md and 1 other file (references) in skills/security-and-hardening of addyosmani/agent-skills.

  • SKILL.md
  • references/hardening-patterns.md

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 1be8e34

Used in 1 other repository

We found 1 copy of this SKILL.md (exact, near-identical or edited) in other folders, from 1 other GitHub owner. This page covers the copy in addyosmani/agent-skills, which our catalogue first saw on October 7, 2026.

Compare with similar skills

Security and Hardening next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Security and Hardening compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Security and Hardening this skilladdyosmani/agent-skills105k1 repos~4.4kAutomated safety check: NotesMIT
Expert SecurityReJeCtAll/ExpertTeam-Codex113—~780Automated safety check: PassMIT
Security And Hardeningpenpot/penpot61k6 repos~4.7kAutomated safety check: NotesMPL-2.0
Security Audit Scannerruvnet/ruflo74k1 repos~823Automated safety check: PassMIT
Security And Hardeningdzhalaevd/Donatello135—~5.1kAutomated safety check: NotesApache-2.0
Securing AI Systemstrilwu/secskills157—~2.9kAutomated safety check: PassMIT

Similar skills

  • Expert Security

    ReJeCtAll/ExpertTeam-Codex

    安全专家入口。用于 Codex CLI 的 $expert-security 调用. An agent skill from ReJeCtAll/ExpertTeam-Codex.

    113 GitHub stars~780 tokensUpdated 3 mo ago
    SecurityAuto-check passed
  • Hardens code against vulnerabilities. An agent skill from penpot/penpot.

    61k GitHub starsUsed in 6 repos~4.7k tokens
    SecurityAuto-check: notes
  • Runs claude-flow CLI security scans for input validation, path traversal, SQL injection, XSS, hardcoded secrets and known CVEs, and writes an audit report.

    74k GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~823 tokens
    SecurityAuto-check passed
  • Security And Hardening

    dzhalaevd/Donatello

    Review or harden security-sensitive behavior involving authentication, authorization, secrets, sessions, untrusted input, sensitive data, or trust boundaries.

    135 GitHub stars~5.1k tokensUpdated 7 days ago
    SecurityAuto-check: notes
  • Securing AI Systems

    trilwu/secskills

    Assess and harden LLM applications and agentic systems against prompt injection, tool misuse, excessive agency, memory poisoning, RAG data leakage, and model supply-chain risk, mapped to the OWASP…

    157 GitHub stars~2.9k tokensUpdated 1 mo ago
    SecurityAuto-check passed
  • A skill your agent uses when you need to apply Java secure coding best practices — including validating untrusted inputs, defending against injection attacks with parameterized queries, minimizing…

    447 GitHub stars~885 tokensUpdated 3 days ago
    SecurityAuto-check passed

More from addyosmani/agent-skills

All 12 skills in this repo
  • Idea Refinement

    addyosmani/agent-skills

    Guides a conversation that takes a vague idea through divergent and convergent thinking and ends in a markdown one-pager covering scope and assumptions.

    105k GitHub starsUsed in 6 repos~2k tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Interview Me

    addyosmani/agent-skills

    Asks one question at a time, each with a best guess attached, until the agent is about 95 percent sure what you really want, before any plan, spec or code.

    105k GitHub starsUsed in 6 repos~3.8k tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Using Agent Skills

    addyosmani/agent-skills

    Meta-skill for choosing which workflow skill fits the task at hand, plus always-on habits: surface assumptions, stop on confusion, push back, keep it simple and stay in scope.

    105k GitHub starsUsed in 4 repos~2.4k tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Connects an agent to a real Chrome instance through the Chrome DevTools MCP server, so it can inspect the DOM, read console errors and profile performance directly.

    105k GitHub starsUsed in 4 repos~3.5k tokens
    Auto-check: warnings
  • Constraint-Driven Development

    addyosmani/agent-skills

    Records a project's quality bar in CONSTRAINTS.md and watches diffs for signs an agent quietly weakened it, such as suppressions, skipped tests or lowered thresholds.

    105k GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~5.2k tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Git Workflow and Versioning

    addyosmani/agent-skills

    Sets git habits for every change: short-lived branches, atomic commits with descriptive messages, clean pull requests, plus versioning, tagging and changelogs for releases.

    105k GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~3.5k tokens
    Auto-check: notes

Questions about Security and Hardening

What does Security and Hardening do?

Applies a threat-model-first approach to web code that handles untrusted input, authentication, data storage, dependencies or personal data. The skill begins with the stance that every external input is hostile and every authorization check mandatory. Before adding controls, the agent maps trust boundaries, including HTTP requests, form fields, uploads, webhooks, third-party APIs, queues, LLM output and local values such as another process's command line or a path in a job payload.

When should I use Security and Hardening?

Security and Hardening fits situations like: building a feature that accepts user input or handles sessions; reviewing a login flow or input handler against the OWASP Top Ten; triaging dependency audit findings or judging a new package's supply-chain risk; adding file uploads, webhooks or payment handling.

How do I install Security and Hardening in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add addyosmani/agent-skills --skill security-and-hardening -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/security-and-hardening in addyosmani/agent-skills) into .claude/skills/security-and-hardening in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Security and Hardening in Codex?

Run `npx skills add addyosmani/agent-skills --skill security-and-hardening -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/security-and-hardening in addyosmani/agent-skills) into .agents/skills/security-and-hardening in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Security and Hardening in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add addyosmani/agent-skills --skill security-and-hardening -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/security-and-hardening, .gemini/skills/security-and-hardening, .github/skills/security-and-hardening and .opencode/skills/security-and-hardening in your project.

What does Security and Hardening need to run?

Going by SKILL.md and its folder, Security and Hardening needs the command-line tools its instructions call (npm and pnpm).

Does Security and Hardening access the network?

SKILL.md names 1 domain. As links in the text: genai.owasp.org. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Security and Hardening safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found notes only (mentions a .env file), nothing it rates as a warning. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Security and Hardening use?

Security and Hardening is published under the MIT licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Security and Hardening use?

About 4.4k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 18k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full. Its references folder adds about 3.3k tokens, read only when the agent opens those files.

What are the alternatives to Security and Hardening?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Security and Hardening: Expert Security (ReJeCtAll/ExpertTeam-Codex, 113 stars), Security And Hardening (penpot/penpot, 61k stars), Security Audit Scanner (ruvnet/ruflo, 74k stars) and Security And Hardening (dzhalaevd/Donatello, 135 stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Security and Hardening?

addyosmani (a GitHub user) maintains it in addyosmani/agent-skills, which has 104,602 GitHub stars. The repository holds 12 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 10, 2026.

Source: addyosmani/agent-skills on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.