Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Configure microsegmentation policies to enforce least-privilege workload-to-workload access using tools like VMware NSX, Illumio, and Calico, preventing lateral movement in zero trust architectures.
.claude/skills/configuring-microsegmentation-for-zero-trust/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-12 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-17 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-07 | ✓→✓ | = Same ✓ | — | — |
Microsegmentation divides a network into granular security zones, enforcing least-privilege access between workloads at the application layer rather than relying on traditional VLAN-based segmentation. In a zero trust architecture, microsegmentation eliminates implicit trust between workloads within the same network segment, preventing lateral movement even after an attacker gains initial access.
This skill covers designing microsegmentation policies using workload identity, implementing host-based and network-based enforcement, and validating segmentation effectiveness with tools like Illumio Core and VMware NSX.
Traditional Segmentation Microsegmentation
┌─────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────┐
│ VLAN 10 │ │ Workload A ←policy→ │
│ ┌───┐ ┌───┐ │ │ Workload B ←policy→ │
│ │ A │ │ B │ │ │ Workload C ←policy→ │
│ └───┘ └───┘ │ │ Workload D ←policy→ │
│ (trust each │ │ (zero trust between │
│ other) │ │ every pair) │
└─────────────────┘ └──────────────────────┘Before creating segmentation policies, discover actual communication flows between workloads using traffic telemetry. Tools like Illumio, Guardicore, and AppDynamics provide application dependency maps showing which workloads communicate, over which ports, and how frequently.
Draft policies in monitor/visibility mode before enforcement. This allows validation that proposed rules will not break legitimate traffic while identifying unnecessary or risky communication paths.
Modern microsegmentation uses labels (role, application, environment, location) instead of IP-based rules. Label-based policies are portable across environments and survive IP changes during migrations.
Isolate critical applications (PCI cardholder data environment, SWIFT financial systems, healthcare PHI) with strict allow-list policies that deny all traffic not explicitly permitted.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-05 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-16 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +18 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
The per-case answers from this run were removed by the retention sweep, so the case table below shows the verdicts without the text either arm produced. The counts above were recorded at the time and are unaffected. Answers are now kept for 180 days.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.