security-verification-layer-discipline
When verifying security/enforcement/safety claims — each layer needs its own evidence; don't over-extend a verified claim to the next unverified layer
- License 许可
- MIT
- 最近更新
- 2026-11-11
- Stars
- ★ 2
- Forks
- 0
01 前言 Front Matter
- name
- security-verification-layer-discipline
- description
- When verifying security/enforcement/safety claims — each layer needs its own evidence; don't over-extend a verified claim to the next unverified layer
03 SKILL.md 正文
Security Verification Layer Discipline
The Pattern
When verifying whether a guard/safety mechanism works, each LAYER of the claim requires its OWN evidence. Proving layer N does NOT prove layer N+1.
Common layer gaps (where overclaims hide)
- Config-wired ≠ runtime-firing — a hook existing in
.codex/config.tomlor.claude/settings.jsondoesn't prove it EXECUTES at runtime. Different harnesses (Claude Code vs Codex vs OMP) invoke hooks differently; each needs its own live E2E test. - Code-routing ≠ hook-invokes-at-runtime — tracing
functionA() → functionB() → evaluateToolCall()in HEAD code proves the ROUTING, not that the harness actually callsfunctionA()when a tool runs. - Catches-accidental ≠ adversarial-boundary — a JS monkeypatch (
--requireshim) that stops accidentalfs.rmSyncis NOT a sandbox against adversarial in-process code (process.binding, cache-bust, native binaries). - HEAD-committed ≠ on-disk-live —
git show HEAD:pathproves committed content; it does NOT prove the file exists on disk in the working tree. When the tool filesystem view is partial/sandboxed, use multiple verification methods.
Evidence standards (name them explicitly)
- HEAD code-trace (
git show HEAD:path | sed -n) — proves committed code logic, nothing about runtime. - Live E2E test (real tool event → observe block/allow) — proves the hook fires AND reaches the guard for a specific harness.
- Runtime block-test under bypass flag — proves the guard survives the specific bypass mechanism (e.g.,
--dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox). - On-disk check (
test -f,ls, NOTgit show) — proves the file exists in the working tree.
Rules
- Don't transfer evidence between harnesses (Claude Code live block ≠ Codex live block).
- Don't collapse tiers — state each harness/path separately with its own evidence standard.
- The conservative default for any unverified safety layer: assume UNGUARDED until the exact test that settles it passes.
- For destructive-op boundaries specifically: removing a safety precaution carries the burden of proof; the reversible default wins.
Verification methodology
git grepsearches the WORKING TREE; when the working tree is unresolved (sandbox/partial view), it returns false negatives. Usegit show HEAD:path | sed -nfor reliable HEAD-content verification.git ls-files --deleted= empty means git considers the tree intact; if yourls/find/test -fdisagree, YOUR tool view is the suspect, not the tree.- When concluding 'fabrication' or 'does not exist': verify with MULTIPLE methods (git show, git ls-files, test -f) before drawing the negative conclusion. A wrong file extension in your search path produces a false negative that looks like a fabrication.
04 同仓库更多 Skills
zoom-out
Tell the agent to zoom out and give broader context or a higher-level perspective. Use when you're unfamiliar with a section of code or need to understand how it fits into the bigger picture.
yuri-shura
6-perspective adversarial review for high-stakes turns (architecture decisions, refactor planning, deployment review) — fans out architect, adversary (7-vector attack), maintainer, ops, product, and security perspectives in parallel, then consolidates. Use when user says 'review this decision', '/shura', 'adversarial review', 'what could go wrong', 'architecture review', or 'deployment review'.
yuri-sales-intelligence
Unified sales and outreach skill generating cold outreach openers, social selling sequences, objection rebuttals, and ad creative for any paid platform — multi-persona aware, adapting tone and offer frame to buyer type. Use when user says 'write a cold email', 'outreach sequence', 'objection handling', 'ad copy', or 'sales pitch'.
yuri-code-intelligence
Unified code quality intelligence layer that diagnoses code smells (Long Method, Feature Envy, design pattern issues), prescribes targeted Fowler refactoring techniques, and reviews code for security, performance, and clarity. Use when user says 'review this code', 'refactor this', 'what's wrong with this method', 'code smells', or 'clean this up'.
yuri-adw
Invoke when user asks to run the ADW loop / agentic engineering loop / software factory workflow.
writing-skills
Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment