Official agent skill

Post-Patch Validation

by trailofbits in trailofbits/skills

Tests a security patch against the original bug, its variants and normal behavior, with reproducible baseline-versus-patched evidence before you merge or call it fixed.

OfficialCC-BY-SA-4.0Auto-check: notesSecurity

Install Post-Patch Validation

skills CLI
$ npx skills add trailofbits/skills --skill post-patch-validation -a claude-code

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

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install trailofbits/skills post-patch-validation --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/trailofbits/skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/plugins/post-patch-validation/skills/post-patch-validation .claude/skills/post-patch-validation && 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
post-patch-validation
GitHub stars
7.4k
Token cost
~3.8k tokens
SKILL.md length
1,931 words
Files
5 (incl. scripts, references)
Skills in repo
79
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
CC-BY-SA-4.0

At a glance

Tests a security patch against the original bug, its variants and normal behavior, with reproducible baseline-versus-patched evidence before you merge or call it fixed.

  • Works in 6 steps: Pin the vulnerable base and patched… → Scaffold a pinned plan → Inspect the finding, diff, callers,… → …
  • Validating an AI-generated security patch before human review
  • SKILL.md covers When to Use, When NOT to Use, Quick Start and Evidence Contract, plus 4 more sections
  • Runs Python scripts from its folder; calls uv and git; needs API_KEY

What it does

Use this once a security fix exists, whether a person or an AI agent wrote it. The skill checks the patch against the reported bug and the code around it: the original exploit, other variants of the same root cause, preserved behavior, regressions and new security failures. The diff, the author and the original proof of concept are never treated as proof that the fix is right.

Work starts by pinning the vulnerable base and the patched input, then scaffolding a plan with scripts/post_patch_validation.py run through uv. The agent fills in the checks, runs validate-plan to verify coverage, command restrictions and pinned inputs, and only then executes the evidence plan. Each result carries an honest evidence level of source, build or runtime. It executes local code and tests only, so it is not for remote or production targets, and you must authorize running the repository's code.

When your agent uses it

  • Validating an AI-generated security patch before human review
  • Checking that a fix covers variants of the same root cause, not one exploit path
  • Confirming a remediation commit does not break legitimate behavior
  • Giving a patch author reproducible failures before another revision

Example prompts

  • “Validate this heap overflow fix against the vulnerable commit before I merge it.”
  • “The agent-written fix for the path traversal bug passes its own test, so try to break it with variants.”
  • “Compare the baseline and patched builds for the SQL injection fix and report any regressions.”

Requirements

  • uv, to run scripts/post_patch_validation.py
  • The vulnerable base and the patch as commits or a patch file
  • Permission to run the repository's code and tests locally
  • Pre-approved tools (allowed-tools): Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Bash, Workflow

Workflow steps

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

  1. Pin the vulnerable base and patched input. Prefer immutable commits. For uncommitted work,
  2. Scaffold a pinned plan
  3. Inspect the finding, diff, callers, sibling paths, cleanup/error paths, and existing tests.
  4. Run validate-plan for the complete validation, including coverage, command restrictions,
  5. Execute the evidence plan
  6. Report result.json, report.md, the evidence level, and the complete assessment.

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 82fe822. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves these tools, so the agent can use them without asking each time:

    • Read
    • Write
    • Edit
    • Grep
    • Glob
    • Bash
    • Workflow

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    Ships 2 files in scripts/ (Python), which the agent can run.

    Shell commands in SKILL.md call:

    • uv
    • git

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

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md. Its commands use uv and git, which can reach the network depending on how they are called.

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

  • Credentials

    Names these keys or tokens, usually read from environment variables:

    • API_KEY

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

Context cost

Post-Patch Validation loads about 3.8k tokens when it runs, and up to ~6.9k if it reads all its reference files. Until then it costs about 116 tokens; SKILL.md has 1,931 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~116
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~3.8k
With references · SKILL.md plus every file in references/, read only if the agent opens them
~6.9k

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.

  • NotePre-approves every shell command (allowed-tools: Bash)SKILL.md
    allowed-tools: Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Bash, Workflow

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); the scripts in this folder are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from trailofbits/skills at commit 82fe822, republished under its CC-BY-SA-4.0 licence (© trailofbits). 1,931 words, ~3,833 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/post-patch-validation/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder). This skill also uses 4 other files; get the full folder from GitHub.
name
post-patch-validation
description
Validates security patches with reproducible baseline-versus-patched evidence, including original exploits, root-cause variants, behavior preservation, regressions, and newly introduced security failures. Use after a patch exists and before accepting, merging, or reporting it as fixed; also use when an AI-generated patch, remediation commit, pull request, or proposed upstream fix needs adversarial post-patch validation across any language.
allowed-tools
Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Bash, Workflow

Post-Patch Validation

Validate a security patch against the reported bug and the surrounding code it affects. Give the patch author reproducible failures to fix and identify what still needs testing. Apply the same checks to human and agent patches. The diff, author, upstream implementation, and original proof of concept alone cannot establish correctness.

When to Use

  • A security fix, remediation commit, patch file, or pull request already exists.
  • An AI-generated patch needs validation before human review or merge.
  • A fix may cover one exploit path while missing variants of the same root cause.
  • A security fix may alter legitimate behavior or introduce a new vulnerability.
  • A patch author needs concrete failures and coverage gaps before another revision.

When NOT to Use

  • No patch exists yet; use vulnerability discovery or fix implementation first.
  • The task is to review an audit finding against a report without executing patch evidence.
  • The task is only to convert a finding into a permanent project test.
  • The target is remote or production. This skill executes local code and tests only.
  • The user has not authorized execution of the repository's code or test suite.

Quick Start

  1. Pin the vulnerable base and patched input. Prefer immutable commits. For uncommitted work, create a binary patch file first; do not validate in the user's working tree.

  2. Scaffold a pinned plan:

    bash
    uv run {baseDir}/scripts/post_patch_validation.py scaffold \
      --repo . \
      --base-ref <vulnerable-ref> \
      --patched-ref <patched-ref> \
      --finding-id <stable-id> \
      --finding-summary "<root cause and impact>" \
      --evidence-level runtime \
      --output post-patch-validation/plan.json

    Use --patch-file <path> instead of --patched-ref for a patch artifact. Choose the highest honest evidence level: source for source/patch invariants only, build when target code is compiled or analyzed but the reported behavior is not executed, or runtime when the checks execute the reported behavior and its safety assertions.

  3. Inspect the finding, diff, callers, sibling paths, cleanup/error paths, and existing tests. Populate checks in the generated plan. Run print-schema for the structural schema:

    bash
    uv run {baseDir}/scripts/post_patch_validation.py print-schema
  4. Run validate-plan for the complete validation, including coverage, command restrictions, and pinned inputs, before executing code:

    bash
    uv run {baseDir}/scripts/post_patch_validation.py validate-plan \
      --plan post-patch-validation/plan.json
  5. Execute the evidence plan:

    bash
    uv run {baseDir}/scripts/post_patch_validation.py run \
      --plan post-patch-validation/plan.json \
      --output post-patch-validation/results
  6. Report result.json, report.md, the evidence level, and the complete assessment. Return each finding to the patch author with its check ID, assertion, and saved logs. Identify each validation gap separately, including gaps that coexist with supported findings. After the author revises the patch, pin the new inputs and save a fresh validation run. Preserve the prior evidence. Passing supplied checks still requires human review before acceptance.

Evidence Contract

The runner rejects incomplete plans. Supply at least one check of every kind:

KindRequired observation
controlBenign harness succeeds on both base and patch
exploitOriginal safety assertion fails on base and succeeds on patch
variantA distinct root-cause variant fails on base and succeeds on patch
behaviorUnaffected behavior succeeds with byte-identical selected output
regressionTargeted non-security regression check succeeds on both revisions
securityAdjacent/new-vulnerability check succeeds on base and patch
suiteExisting project suite, sanitizer, or deterministic fuzz campaign succeeds on patch

Commands are argv arrays, never shell strings. Put complex setup in a checked-in or plan artifact script and invoke it with {plan_dir}. The runner fixes locale/timezone/hash-seed inputs, executes checks in lexical ID order, records raw stdout/stderr, and never edits the original worktree. Each check's timeout_seconds defaults to 300 and accepts integers from 1 through 3600. Exceeding the timeout leaves a validation gap. A timeout alone does not establish a regression. Every plan also contains a sorted submodules array ([] when none). Scaffolding infers affected Gitlinks from the changed-file inventory. The runner initializes those pinned commits from the source repository's existing Git module objects, never from .gitmodules network URLs; initialize or fetch them in the source repository before validation.

Exploit and variant checks must prove they ran

A nonzero exit does not mean the vulnerability reproduced. An import error, a failed build, a missing dependency, and a failed safety assertion all exit nonzero and are indistinguishable to the runner. Every exploit and variant check must print and flush PPV_REACHED immediately before it evaluates its assertion, on both revisions:

json
"argv": ["python3", "-c", "import app; value = app.render('<'); print('PPV_REACHED', flush=True); assert value == '&lt;'"]

The token is also in the environment as PPV_REACHED_MARKER. It must land on stdout, as a line of its own. Stderr is not scanned, because a Python SyntaxError traceback echoes the offending source and would otherwise satisfy the check for a harness that executed nothing. A run without it leaves a marker_missing gap. Independent findings from other checks remain in the result. Flush explicitly: a harness whose payload segfaults or calls _exit loses buffered output and forfeits its own evidence.

These checks also run side-blind. {side} is not expanded for them, PPV_SIDE is absent from their environment, the checkout directory is randomly named, and the plan validator rejects any exploit or variant check whose argv or env mentions either. An assertion that can see which revision it is on can assert on that instead of on the code, which is the cheapest possible way to fake a reproduction followed by a fix.

Environment

Checks run under a fixed minimal environment: PATH, HOME, and a handful of temp/user keys, plus LANG/LC_ALL=C, TZ=UTC, PYTHONHASHSEED=0, NO_COLOR, TERM=dumb. Everything else in the caller's environment is dropped. Toolchains that need more get it explicitly:

bash
uv run {baseDir}/scripts/post_patch_validation.py run \
  --plan post-patch-validation/plan.json \
  --output post-patch-validation/results \
  --allow-env JAVA_HOME --allow-env CARGO_HOME

Forwarded names and values are recorded in result.json. A requested variable that is unset is an error, not an empty string. Two classes are refused outright: names that read as credentials (*SECRET*, *TOKEN*, *API_KEY*, …), because the value would be written into the result; and names that change what executes (LD_PRELOAD, BASH_ENV, NODE_OPTIONS, GIT_SSH_COMMAND, …), because those variables can change which code executes. The runner's fixed variables and every PPV_* name are also reserved and cannot be forwarded.

Placeholders expanded in argv and per-check env values: {checkout} (the revision under test), {plan_dir} (an isolated copy of the plan artifacts for that one invocation), {scratch} (a fresh opaque directory for that one check invocation), and {side} (base or patched, and not available to exploit/variant checks). The same values arrive as PPV_CHECKOUT, PPV_PLAN_DIR, PPV_SCRATCH, PPV_SIDE, and PPV_CASE_ID. Write only under {scratch}; the evidence directory path is not passed to checks. Base and patched invocations do not share runner-managed scratch, plan, or worktree roots. After each invocation exits, its scratch tree is archived under the deterministic results/scratch/<check-id-and-side> path, its private plan copy is discarded, and every readable argv element that resolves to a file is hashed in argv_files. Files inside the isolated plan or checkout roots are additionally retained under results/helpers/<sha256> up to 16 MiB; the record explains why any other file was not archived. Use a dedicated directory for plan.json: its sibling files and directories are copied into each invocation's {plan_dir}. Keep helper code under that directory's checks/ directory or checked into the target repository so its bytes are reviewable. The machine plan containing commit pins, the current output directory, and detected prior result trees are excluded; symlinks are rejected. The clean snapshot remains only in runner memory, and exploit/variant sides execute in random order while evidence filenames remain deterministic. Stdout/stderr use anonymous or randomly named capture descriptors and are copied to the named evidence files only after the child exits, so fd inspection cannot disclose the side label.

This isolation is not a host sandbox: checks run with the caller's privileges and a malicious helper could use arbitrary external state or deliberately infer the revision from source or Git metadata. Inspect the content-addressed helper artifacts, and use an OS/container sandbox when the check code itself is untrusted.

Active validation worktrees are Git-locked with random owner tokens backed by kernel file locks, so another concurrent validator cannot prune them and PID reuse cannot impersonate an owner. If the runner is forcibly killed, the next run unlocks stale validator-owned registrations. For manual recovery, inspect git worktree list, then use git worktree unlock <path> and git worktree remove --force <path> (or git worktree prune after the path is gone).

Read evidence-model.md when designing coverage, selecting variants, or interpreting findings and validation gaps. Do not read it for routine CLI execution.

Show full SKILL.md (630 more words)Show less

Coverage Rules

  • Derive variants from the root cause, not cosmetic mutations of the original payload.
  • Enumerate sibling call sites, alternate callbacks/outputs, error paths, teardown, ownership, serialization, and boundary values touched by the fix.
  • Make each exploit or variant test assert the safe behavior. It must fail on the vulnerable base; a test that passes on both revisions proves nothing about remediation. Read the base-side stderr and confirm the failure is the assertion you wrote, not a harness that never got there.
  • Keep exploit and variant assertions limited to the security invariant. Test liveness, exact error types/messages, timing, and compatibility separately as behavior or regression checks; otherwise an unrelated contract change can masquerade as proof that the vulnerability remains.
  • Keep the control harness benign and make it exercise the changed component. It establishes that the harness works on both revisions. Failed controls leave gaps and prevent attributing other failures to the patch. The raw observations remain available for review.
  • Use behavior only for behavior that should remain unchanged. Exact output comparison is deliberate; move unstable values behind a deterministic test harness instead of normalizing them away in prose.
  • Make security checks pass on the vulnerable base before treating a patched failure as newly introduced. A failed baseline leaves attribution unresolved.
  • Do not edit the patch during validation. Return failures to the patch author and start a new, freshly pinned run.

Reading the result

result.json schema 2.0 contains an assessment with status, findings, gaps, and human_review_required. Status is complete when all required checks produced usable evidence, even if some checks found failures. Status is incomplete when any gap remains. Findings name the check ID, check kind, and failed expectation. Gaps name the check ID and missing evidence, with a null check ID for run-level problems such as cleanup failures.

Suite checks run on the patched revision first. A completed failure triggers the same check on baseline. If baseline passes, report the failure after the patch. If both fail, preserve both logs and report that attribution is unresolved. Do not assume matching exit codes mean the same failure.

The runner exits 0 for complete checks with no findings, 1 for complete checks with findings, 10 for incomplete validation, and 64 for invalid inputs. Read the artifact even after exit 10: it can contain supported findings alongside gaps. Source or build evidence cannot establish runtime behavior. State the evidence level alongside any passing result.

Claude Dynamic Workflow

Claude Code exposes the bundled workflow as /post-patch-validation:validate-patch. To pass structured inputs through the Workflow tool, use the name without a leading slash:

javascript
Workflow({
  name: 'post-patch-validation:validate-patch',
  args: {
    finding: '<finding text or local path>',
    baseRef: '<vulnerable-ref>',
    patchRef: '<patched-ref>',
    workdir: 'post-patch-validation',
  },
})

Use patchFile instead of patchRef when appropriate. The workflow uses fixed coverage lenses to propose checks and a fixed executor to run this skill. Agents may author test artifacts. The Python runner records findings and gaps, and reviewers report coverage or evidence concerns separately. NEEDS_REPAIR returns supported failures even when other checks left gaps. BLOCKED means evidence is incomplete without a supported failure. Passing checks advance to READY_FOR_HUMAN_REVIEW only after both evidence reviews approve, otherwise REVIEW_REQUIRED. The workflow cannot ask questions after launch, so pass every input up front.

Rationalizations to Reject

RationalizationRequired response
"The original PoC no longer works"Test at least one independent root-cause variant
"The exploit failed on base, so it reproduced"Confirm the marker and that the failure is the assertion, not a broken harness
"The full suite passes"Prove baseline reproduction and targeted behavior explicitly
"This matches the upstream/canonical patch"Treat provenance as context, not evidence
"The diff is tiny"Exercise callers, failure paths, and teardown affected by the change
"All supplied checks passed"Preserve artifacts and require human review
"A flaky rerun passed"Keep the first pinned result; fix nondeterminism before retrying
"There is no obvious variant"Inspect sibling sites and boundaries; otherwise report the missing coverage

© trailofbits, CC-BY-SA-4.0. 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 4 other files (scripts, references) in plugins/post-patch-validation/skills/post-patch-validation of trailofbits/skills.

  • SKILL.md
  • agents/openai.yaml
  • references/evidence-model.md
  • scripts/post_patch_validation.py
  • scripts/pyproject.toml

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 82fe822

Compare with similar skills

Post-Patch Validation 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.

Post-Patch Validation compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Post-Patch Validation this skilltrailofbits/skills7.4k—~3.8kAutomated safety check: NotesCC-BY-SA-4.0
Performing Security Code Reviewjeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace2.8k2 repos~1.3kAutomated safety check: NotesMIT
Skillward AuditFangcun-AI/SkillWard143—~2.9kAutomated safety check: PassCustom licence
Review Criteriaromshark/datapages113—~1.2kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Vibers Code Reviewsickn33/agentic-awesome-skills47k2 repos~1.1kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Remediating With AWS Security Agentaws/agent-toolkit-for-aws2.8k—~2.9kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0

Similar skills

  • Performing Security Code Review

    jeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace

    Execute this skill enables AI assistant to conduct a security-focused code review using the security-agent plugin.

    2.8k GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~1.3k tokens
    SecurityAuto-check: notes
  • Skillward Audit

    Fangcun-AI/SkillWard

    Security-audit a third-party skill bundle (folder with SKILL.md, or .zip / .tar.gz archive) before installing it, using the SkillWard cloud scanner.

    143 GitHub stars~2.9k tokensUpdated 2 mo ago
    SecurityAuto-check passed
  • Review Criteria

    romshark/datapages

    Classify Datapages findings by reach and severity and write review-.md reports.

    113 GitHub stars~1.2k tokensUpdated today
    SecurityAuto-check passed
  • Vibers Code Review

    sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills

    Human review workflow for AI-generated GitHub projects with spec-based feedback, security review, and follow-up PRs from the Vibers service.

    47k GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~1.1k tokens
    SecurityAuto-check passed
  • Remediating With AWS Security Agent

    aws/agent-toolkit-for-aws

    Official

    Pull AWS Security Agent findings (penetration tests and code reviews) and drive remediation.

    2.8k GitHub stars~2.9k tokensUpdated yesterday
    SecurityAuto-check passed
  • Code Review Specialist

    luongnv89/claude-howto

    Reviews code for security, performance, quality and maintainability, using a checklist, a finding template and two metrics scripts.

    42k GitHub stars~764 tokensUpdated 8 days ago
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed

More from trailofbits/skills

All 79 skills in this repo
  • Code Graph Mermaid Diagrams

    trailofbits/skills

    Official

    Generates Mermaid diagrams from Trailmark code graphs, including call graphs, class hierarchies, module dependency maps, complexity heatmaps and attack surface data flows.

    7.4k GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~1.7k tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • CodeQL Security Scan

    trailofbits/skills

    Official

    Scans a codebase for vulnerabilities with CodeQL's data flow and taint tracking in run-all or important-only modes, including data extensions for project-specific sources and sinks.

    7.4k GitHub stars~4.6k tokensUpdated yesterday
    Auto-check: notes
  • Trailmark Graph Evolution

    trailofbits/skills

    Official

    Compares Trailmark code graphs at two snapshots, such as commits, tags or directories, to surface attack paths, blast radius and taint changes that text diffs miss.

    7.4k GitHub stars~3.4k tokensUpdated yesterday
    Auto-check passed
  • Let Fate Decide

    trailofbits/skills

    Official

    Draws a 12 Houses tarot spread to break ties when a request is vague or casually delegated, then reads the cards to pick the next step.

    7.4k GitHub stars~2.5k tokensUpdated yesterday
    Auto-check: notes
  • Burp Suite Project Parser

    trailofbits/skills

    Official

    Searches and extracts data from Burp Suite project files on the command line: regex searches over responses, audit findings, proxy history and site map data.

    7.4k GitHub starsUsed in 4 repos~4.2k tokens
    Auto-check: notes
  • Semgrep Security Scan

    trailofbits/skills

    Official

    Detects languages, proposes rulesets for approval, then runs the approved Semgrep scan across a codebase and merges the output into one SARIF file.

    7.4k GitHub stars~3.7k tokensUpdated yesterday
    Auto-check: notes

Questions about Post-Patch Validation

What does Post-Patch Validation do?

Tests a security patch against the original bug, its variants and normal behavior, with reproducible baseline-versus-patched evidence before you merge or call it fixed. Use this once a security fix exists, whether a person or an AI agent wrote it. The skill checks the patch against the reported bug and the code around it: the original exploit, other variants of the same root cause, preserved behavior, regressions and new security failures.

When should I use Post-Patch Validation?

Post-Patch Validation fits situations like: validating an AI-generated security patch before human review; checking that a fix covers variants of the same root cause, not one exploit path; confirming a remediation commit does not break legitimate behavior; giving a patch author reproducible failures before another revision.

How do I install Post-Patch Validation in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add trailofbits/skills --skill post-patch-validation -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (plugins/post-patch-validation/skills/post-patch-validation in trailofbits/skills) into .claude/skills/post-patch-validation in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Post-Patch Validation in Codex?

Run `npx skills add trailofbits/skills --skill post-patch-validation -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (plugins/post-patch-validation/skills/post-patch-validation in trailofbits/skills) into .agents/skills/post-patch-validation in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Post-Patch Validation 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 trailofbits/skills --skill post-patch-validation -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/post-patch-validation, .gemini/skills/post-patch-validation, .github/skills/post-patch-validation and .opencode/skills/post-patch-validation in your project.

What does Post-Patch Validation need to run?

Going by SKILL.md and its folder, Post-Patch Validation needs Python for the scripts in its folder, the command-line tools its instructions call (uv and git) and credentials named API_KEY. Our summary lists: uv, to run scripts/post_patch_validation.py; The vulnerable base and the patch as commits or a patch file; Permission to run the repository's code and tests locally. Its frontmatter pre-approves these tools: Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Bash, Workflow.

Does Post-Patch Validation access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Its commands use uv and git, which can reach the network depending on how they are called. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Post-Patch Validation safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found notes only (pre-approves every shell command (allowed-tools: bash)), nothing it rates as a warning. It is not a guarantee. The check reads SKILL.md only: the scripts in the folder are not scanned, so read them before running anything.

What licence does Post-Patch Validation use?

Post-Patch Validation is published under the CC-BY-SA-4.0 licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Post-Patch Validation use?

About 3.8k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 15k 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 3.1k tokens, read only when the agent opens those files.

What are the alternatives to Post-Patch Validation?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Post-Patch Validation: Performing Security Code Review (jeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace, 2.8k stars), Skillward Audit (Fangcun-AI/SkillWard, 143 stars), Review Criteria (romshark/datapages, 113 stars) and Vibers Code Review (sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills, 47k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Post-Patch Validation?

trailofbits (a GitHub organization, an official publisher) maintains it in trailofbits/skills, which has 7,420 GitHub stars. The repository holds 79 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 7, 2026.

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