Use when the user explicitly asks to fix and verify a validated or plausible security finding.
NewMaintained
Automatic
◆Security & AppSec pack
Last verified 8/20/2026
What it changes
Passed 2 of 9 test cases with the skill, and 2 of 9 without it.
Without skill27%
With skill23%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Inspects `src/db/users.ts` to perform localized code remediation or verification.
Reports concrete command results and explicitly states whether code changes were needed.
Analyzes and remediates the tenant authorization check in `api/v1/projects.go` directly.
and 4 more in the full report
4 fixed1 passed either way12 still failing5 broke
Pass-rate lift
-5 pp
Tokens
+176%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
+82%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/20/2026v15 of 22 cases passed with skill · 9 comparable
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 4 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 4
Prompt
Our security audit flagged a path traversal issue in `server/routes/files.js` when extracting filenames from untrusted user requests. Can you check if this vulnerability still exists, apply a minimal fix if necessary, and ensure existing behavior isn't broken? When finished, please output a breakdown containing: a brief patch summary, the files modified, any new tests created, the terminal commands run and their results, proof that the path traversal vector is resolved, whether code edits were required, and any unverified assumptions or remaining risks.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Performs step-by-step investigation and minimal code remediation on `server/routes/files.js`.
Missed
Passed
Reports concrete command results and explicitly states whether code changes were needed.
Missed
Passed
case-02 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/20/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md103 linessingle file
Fix Finding
Objective
Turn a security finding into a minimal, validated code change when the issue still exists. If the issue is already fixed, prove that with focused validation and report that no code change was needed. The result should include the fix if one was needed, focused regression tests or another repeatable validation check, proof that normal behavior still works, and proof that the original issue no longer reproduces.
Inputs
Start by extracting any available finding details:
title and affected component
vulnerable source, sink, or broken control
attacker-controlled input
expected security invariant
impact and required preconditions
existing PoC, reproducer, test, or validation evidence
files and line references
If a critical field is missing, inspect the repository to fill it from code evidence. Ask the user only when the fix would otherwise require guessing a product policy or security invariant.
Note on Runtime Validation
Use this guidance whenever reproducing the finding, running tests, or validating the fix:
Try hard to make runtime validation run before falling back to code inspection.
First consult the repository instructions such as AGENTS.md, README.md, setup docs, test docs, build files, or package-manager metadata for the necessary requirements.
If dependencies, generated files, services, or local setup are missing, use the repository's documented setup, package manager, build system, or existing test commands to install or generate what is needed.
Treat setup errors as intermediate blockers to investigate and repair with targeted commands, not as an immediate reason to abandon runtime validation.
Do not abandon a reproduction, build, test, or validation command just because it takes time when there is output, resource usage, generated artifacts, or other evidence of progress and no hard evidence of failure.
If a long-running command appears inconclusive, run targeted checks such as process status, recent logs, output file timestamps, resource usage, or test runner status to distinguish progress from a hang before stopping or weakening validation.
Workflow
Scope the fix.
Inspect the affected files and the smallest set of supporting files needed to understand the vulnerable path.
Identify the narrowest code boundary where the security invariant should be enforced.
Check for existing helpers, validators, permission checks, sanitizers, policy objects, and test patterns before adding new ones.
Reproduce or encode the issue before fixing when feasible.
Prefer a failing regression test, unit test, integration test, property test, or realistic-interface reproduction.
Follow the runtime validation guidance above before deciding runtime reproduction is not feasible.