Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Implement security best practices for Lindy AI agents and integrations. Use when securing API keys, configuring agent permissions, verifying webhooks, or auditing agent access. Trigger with phrases like "lindy security", "secure lindy", "lindy API key security", "lindy permissions", "lindy audit".
.claude/skills/jeremylongshore-lindy-security-basics/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -32% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 15% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -16% | 0% |
| case-06 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 38% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 2% | 0% |
Security practices for Lindy AI agents. Agents are autonomous — they connect to external services, execute actions, and handle data. Security focuses on: API key management, webhook authentication, agent permission scoping, integration account isolation, and connection sharing controls.
bash# Store API key in environment variable — never in source code export LINDY_API_KEY="lnd_live_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" # Or use a secret manager # AWS Secrets Manager aws secretsmanager create-secret \ --name lindy/api-key \ --secret-string "$LINDY_API_KEY" # Google Secret Manager echo -n "$LINDY_API_KEY" | gcloud secrets create lindy-api-key \ --data-file=-
Key rotation schedule:
| Environment | Rotation Period | Method | |-------------|----------------|--------| | Development | 30 days | Manual regeneration | | Staging | 90 days | Automated via CI | | Production | 90 days | Secret manager + automated rotation | | Post-incident | Immediately | Manual regeneration + revoke old key |
Every webhook trigger generates a unique secret key. Verify it on every inbound request:
typescript// Webhook signature verification middleware function verifyLindyWebhook( req: express.Request, res: express.Response, next: express.NextFunction ) { const authHeader = req.headers.authorization; const expectedToken = process.env.LINDY_WEBHOOK_SECRET; if (!authHeader || authHeader !== `Bearer ${expectedToken}`) { console.warn('Rejected unauthorized webhook attempt', { ip: req.ip, path: req.path, timestamp: new Date().toISOString(), }); return res.status(401).json({ error: 'Unauthorized' }); } next(); } app.post('/lindy/callback', verifyLindyWebhook, (req, res) => { // Process verified webhook handleWebhook(req.body); res.json({ received: true }); });
Lindy agents access external services through authorized connections. Minimize blast radius:
Per-agent integration isolation:
Connection sharing controls:
| Sharing Level | When to Use | |--------------|-------------| | Private (default) | Personal agents, sensitive data | | Team shared | Team-wide automation agents | | Workspace shared | Organization-wide utility agents |
Agents with Agent Steps can choose which skills to use. Reduce risk:
Agent Prompt Security Patterns:
## Data Constraints
- Never include API keys, passwords, or tokens in responses
- Redact email addresses and phone numbers from summaries
- Do not forward customer data to channels outside #support
- If asked to perform an action outside your scope, respond:
"I cannot perform that action. Please contact an admin."Available on Enterprise plan:
| Feature | Purpose | |---------|---------| | SSO | SAML-based single sign-on | | SCIM | Automated user provisioning/deprovisioning | | Audit Logs | Complete activity trail | | Role-Based Access | Owner/Editor/Viewer workspace roles | | BAA | HIPAA Business Associate Agreement | | AES-256 | Encryption at rest and in transit |
.env file in .gitignore| Issue | Cause | Solution | |-------|-------|----------| | Agent accesses wrong service | Over-permissioned | Remove unnecessary integrations | | Unauthorized webhook processed | No auth verification | Add Bearer token verification | | API key leaked in logs | Key in agent output | Add "never output credentials" to prompt | | Agent sends data to wrong channel | Shared connection | Use per-agent dedicated connections |
Proceed to lindy-prod-checklist for production readiness.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→pass | 35,262 | 16,615 | -53% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,427 | 3,685 | -32% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 35,524 | 31,023 | -13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,837 | 4,841 | +0% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | 19,966 | 14,451 | -28% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,733 | 3,134 | +15% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | 24,305 | 10,208 | -58% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,860 | 2,400 | -16% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 21,382 | 16,412 | -23% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,171 | 2,902 | +34% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | 17,717 | 14,690 | -17% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,091 | 2,891 | +38% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→fail | 18,938 | 11,084 | -41% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,852 | 2,389 | +29% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→fail | 15,800 | 11,656 | -26% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,402 | 2,107 | +50% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 21,751 | 8,684 | -60% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,663 | 2,712 | +2% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 20,527 | 11,189 | -45% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,148 | 2,159 | +1% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 18,866 | 7,206 | -62% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,828 | 2,403 | +31% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 17,697 | 10,398 | -41% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,302 | 2,690 | +17% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 14,392 | 9,521 | -34% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,892 | 2,578 | +36% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 18,321 | 9,763 | -47% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,072 | 2,885 | +39% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 11,214 | 8,400 | -25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,876 | 1,701 | -9% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 11,926 | 3,761 | -68% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,542 | 1,778 | +15% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 14,534 | 4,150 | -71% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,571 | 2,095 | +33% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | 14,345 | 2,720 | -81% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,190 | 1,810 | -17% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | 21,470 | 15,997 | -25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,521 | 3,722 | +6% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | 13,792 | 11,429 | -17% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,264 | 2,638 | +109% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | 14,622 | 14,049 | -4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,890 | 3,254 | +72% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 13,971 | 11,376 | -19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,489 | 2,538 | +70% | 0 | 0 | — |
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 +45 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.