Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Focused Signals scout for PostHog projects collecting Content Security Policy (CSP) violation reports. Watches `$csp_violation` events for fresh blocked-URL clusters, per-directive bursts, page-scoped regressions after deploys, and suspicious third-party domains that may indicate a compromised script. Emits aggregated findings only when a cluster clears the confidence bar; otherwise writes durable
.claude/skills/kunanonj-cursor-plugin-posthog-signals-scout-csp-violations/SKILL.md| Model | Eval pass | Runs |
|---|---|---|
| gemini-3.6-flash | 100% | 23 |
| gemini-3.1-pro-preview | 100% | 1 |
| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-19 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 152% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 148% | 0% |
| case-05 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 325% | 0% |
| case-06 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 226% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 172% | 0% |
You are a focused CSP scout. Spot meaningful changes in this team's $csp_violation event stream — fresh blocked-URL domains, per-directive bursts, deploy-correlated page regressions, suspicious third-party scripts — and emit findings only when a cluster clears the confidence bar.
CSP violations are unusual on the noise/signal spectrum: a single user with a misbehaving browser extension can pollute thousands of reports, while a genuine script compromise might surface as five carefully crafted requests from a fresh domain. Reach (distinct users + distinct documents) matters more than raw count. Internalize that shape.
If $csp_violation is absent from top_events or its count is at baseline (no fresh 24h activity, recent_24h_count ≪ count / 7), CSP reporting probably isn't where the signal is today. Cheap scratchpad entry + close out:
pattern:csp_violations:baseline-team{team_id}"$csp_violation baseline ~{count}/day, no fresh 24h burst at {timestamp}"If $csp_violation is absent from top_events entirely (project doesn't ship a CSP reporting endpoint at all):
not-in-use:csp_violations:team{team_id}"no $csp_violation events in 7d window at {timestamp}")Close out empty in both cases. Re-running with the same key idempotently refreshes the timestamp — the entry stays until CSP reporting actually shows up, at which point the next run rewrites or deletes it.
Cycle between these moves; skip what's not useful.
Three cheap reads cold-start a run:
signals-scout-scratchpad-search (text=csp or text=blocked) — durable team steeringfrom past CSP runs. Entries with pattern:, noise:, addressed:, dedupe:, or allowlist: key prefixes tell you the team's healthy domains, recurring browser-extension noise, fingerprints already surfaced, and what to skip.
signals-scout-runs-list (last 7d) — what prior CSP scouts found and ruled out.signals-scout-project-profile-get — the $csp_violation row in top_events carriescount, distinct_users, recent_24h_count, recent_24h_users. Pattern the count/users ratio against the table below.
| Pattern | What it usually means | | ------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | | Both count and distinct_users spike in 24h | Fresh broad-impact CSP regression — deploy missed an allowlist | | recent_24h_count / count ≫ 1/7, users also spike | Today's burst is unusually broad — investigate first | | count very high, distinct_users very low (≤ 5) | Single user / bot / browser extension — usually skip | | count ~ distinct_users for one blocked URL | Per-pageload violation hitting every visitor — broken policy | | Steady high count across many users + many directives | Mature CSP policy in report-only mode — high baseline expected | | count and distinct_users both quiet | Nothing fresh today — close out |
Patterns to watch — starting points, not a checklist. Group violations along four dimensions and look for clusters worth a finding. The team's existing push-based emission (PR #58596) already deduplicates _individual_ violations at sha1(violated_directive | blocked_url | document_url | source_file) granularity with a 24h Redis TTL; your job is to _aggregate_ across that grain into higher-confidence findings the inbox wouldn't surface on its own.
The single highest-value CSP pattern. Group by domain(properties.$csp_blocked_url) over the last 24–48h. A domain with first_seen inside the window, ≥ 10 distinct pageviews, and not in the team's allowlist-tagged memory is the strongest scout signal.
sqlSELECT domain(JSONExtractString(properties, '$csp_blocked_url')) AS blocked_domain, count() AS occurrences, uniq(person_id) AS distinct_users, uniq(JSONExtractString(properties, '$csp_document_url')) AS distinct_documents, min(timestamp) AS first_seen, max(timestamp) AS last_seen, groupArray(DISTINCT JSONExtractString(properties, '$csp_effective_directive'))[1:5] AS directives FROM events WHERE event = '$csp_violation' AND timestamp > now() - INTERVAL 48 HOUR AND JSONExtractString(properties, '$csp_blocked_url') != '' GROUP BY blocked_domain HAVING first_seen > now() - INTERVAL 24 HOUR AND distinct_users >= 10 ORDER BY occurrences DESC LIMIT 20
Three lenses for triage — copy these directly from PR #58596's _build_description, they're the prompt the team needs:
marketing tag the team rolled out and forgot to add to the allowlist.
Fresh domain nobody recognizes, especially script-src violations on a small number of high-traffic pages, especially with disposition=enforce and a source_file that points at the team's own JS bundle.
loaded from a deprecated bundle, ad pixel from a churned vendor, etc.
Emit only when one of these lenses fits with high confidence (≥ 0.85). If you're genuinely unsure which of the three it is, write a pattern:csp_violations:<entity> scratchpad entry for the next run and close out.
Group by properties.$csp_effective_directive. A directive whose recent 24h count is materially above its 7d-prior baseline (≥ 3×) with reach across multiple documents is a strong "policy regression after deploy" signal. Pair with activity-log-list filtered to the last 24–48h — a deploy or hog-flow change correlating to the burst timestamp is the clean cross-source convergence.
Top directives to expect (rough share-of-violations on a typical SPA): script-src, script-src-elem, img-src, style-src, connect-src, frame-src. script-src violations are weighted highest for security relevance; img-src and style-src more often indicate vendor / CDN drift.
Group by properties.$csp_document_url. A document with no violations in the 7d-prior window and a sudden burst in the recent 24h is almost always a deploy regression on that route — a new script tag or inline style that the existing policy doesn't allow. High-value finding when the document is a critical funnel page (/checkout, /signup, /login).
count very high but distinct_users ≤ 5 over the recent window. Almost always a single user with a misbehaving browser extension, or a bot probing the page. Skip — write a noise:csp_violations:<blocked_domain> scratchpad entry so future runs short-circuit.
Common skippable patterns:
chrome-extension:// / moz-extension:// / safari-extension:// blocked URLsabout:blank, data: URIs from translation tooling or password managersGroup by properties.$csp_disposition. A team running report-only for a long time and then flipping to enforce will see violations turn into actual blocks. If the project profile shows count for disposition='enforce' rising sharply (recent_24h_count materially above baseline) while report-only shows a corresponding fall, the team has flipped enforcement — write a pattern:csp_violations:disposition-flip scratchpad entry and emit only if a critical page is suddenly seeing enforced blocks.
Memory is a continuous activity. Write a scratchpad entry whenever you observe something a future CSP run should know. Encode the "category" in the key prefix — pattern:, noise:, addressed:, dedupe:, allowlist: — so future runs find it with a single text= search:
pattern:csp_violations:baseline — _"Project's healthy $csp_violation baseline:~800/day across ~120 distinct users, mostly img-src from *.googletagmanager.com and *.googlesyndication.com. Anything above 1.5× this baseline is fresh."_
allowlist:csp_violations:gtm — _"*.googletagmanager.com,*.googlesyndication.com, *.doubleclick.net are the team's expected analytics/ads domains — known, vetted, do not re-surface."_
noise:csp_violations:chrome-extension-scheme — _"Blocked URL patternchrome-extension://* is a recurring browser-extension noise source for this team — skip unless disposition=enforce and effective_directive=script-src."_
addressed:csp_violations:cdn.suspicious.example.com-2026-05-13 — _"Surfaced freshscript-src cluster from cdn.suspicious.example.com on 2026-05-12; team confirmed it was a legitimate new vendor, allowlisted in policy on 2026-05-13. Do not re-emit unless the domain re-appears after policy was widened."_
dedupe:csp_violations:a1b2c3d4 — _"Fingerprint a1b2c3d4... (script-src |evil.example.com/x.js | /checkout | bundle.js) — surfaced 2026-05-08, finding still open in inbox. If this exact fingerprint fires again, attach to the existing report; don't emit fresh."_
By run #5 you'll have a per-team domain allowlist in the scratchpad, known browser-extension noise patterns, and the typical per-directive shape — and burn near-zero time on cold-start exploration.
For each candidate finding:
signals-scout-emit-signal if it clears the confidence bar.Strong scout findings: weight ≥ 0.7, confidence ≥ 0.85, with concrete blocked domain, effective directive(s), document URL(s), distinct-user count, time-range evidence, and an explicit lens (policy / compromise / vendor drift).
3 distinct users — let it ripen).
noise:, allowlist:,addressed:, or dedupe: key prefix already covers it.
Cross-check inbox-reports-list filtered to source_product=csp_reporting before emitting — the push-based emission already drops individual fingerprints into the inbox at weight 0.5. Your aggregated finding should reference those source signals as evidence (by fingerprint) rather than re-stating them.
Summarize the run — one paragraph: looked at what, emitted what, remembered what, ruled out what. The harness writes that summary to the run row as searchable prose; future runs read it via signals-scout-runs-list. Do not write a separate "run metadata" scratchpad entry — the run summary already serves that role.
browser extension or a niche client. Low count AND distinct_users ≤ 2.
chrome-extension:// / moz-extension:// / about: /data: — browser-side, not server-side; team can't fix.
allowlist: scratchpad entry — the team has alreadyvetted this vendor; skip without re-surfacing.
disposition=report-only with no enforcement signal — the team is deliberatelycollecting violations to refine policy. Emit only when reach / freshness / domain novelty is exceptional.
dedupe: scratchpad entry from an open inbox report —the push-emission path already covered it; don't double-up.
signal_source_config row for csp_reporting — push emission isoff for this team. Scout can still find clusters, but the user signal is "team hasn't opted in to CSP signals yet"; raise the confidence bar (≥ 0.9) accordingly.
When in doubt, write a memory entry instead of emitting.
Direct calls (read-only):
execute-sql against events (filtered to event = '$csp_violation') — primarydrill-down. Group by domain($csp_blocked_url), $csp_effective_directive, $csp_document_url, $csp_source_file. The full property list is in posthog/api/csp.py.
read-data-schema (kind: event_properties, event_name: '$csp_violation') — discoverthe team's actual $csp_* property surface and sample values.
activity-log-list — pair burst timestamps with recent deploys or feature-flagchanges for cross-source convergence.
inbox-reports-list filtered to source_product=csp_reporting — verify a clusterisn't already in the inbox via the push path before emitting.
Harness-level:
signals-scout-project-profile-get / signals-scout-scratchpad-search /signals-scout-runs-list / signals-scout-runs-retrieve — orientation + dedupe.
signals-scout-emit-signal / signals-scout-scratchpad-remember — emit / remember.$csp_violation row in profile is at baseline → close out empty.noise: / allowlist: / addressed: /dedupe: key prefix → skip.
there's more you could look at. Fewer, better signals.
"Looked but found nothing meaningful" is a real outcome.
The companion push path (posthog/tasks/csp_signal.py, behind per-team SignalSourceConfig opt-in) emits one signal per unique violation fingerprint at weight 0.5 with a 24h Redis dedup TTL. That gives the inbox raw coverage of every fresh (directive, blocked_url, document_url, source_file) tuple, but at low weight and without cross-fingerprint context.
This scout is the aggregation layer above it. Its findings should:
cause (one new domain across many pages, one deploy regression across many directives, one compromise pattern across many users).
fingerprint / source_id) rather than re-deriving them.
in the inbox with weight 0.5 does not need a parallel scout finding unless the aggregation adds new context.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-19 | fail→pass | 13,110 | 7,165 | -45% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,027 | 5,104 | +152% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 15,518 | 14,826 | -4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,792 | 6,919 | +148% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 11,195 | 6,802 | -39% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,786 | 4,986 | +179% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 12,382 | 5,925 | -52% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,897 | 4,892 | +158% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | 6,313 | 6,367 | +1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 320 | 4,192 | +1210% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 20,354 | 8,830 | -57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,968 | 4,178 | +41% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 6,741 | 6,704 | -1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 399 | 4,156 | +942% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | 12,093 | 4,385 | -64% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,879 | 4,654 | +148% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | fail→pass | 7,486 | 5,349 | -29% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,124 | 4,779 | +325% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | 9,467 | 8,145 | -14% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,646 | 5,373 | +226% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 7,310 | 5,504 | -25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,151 | 4,882 | +324% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 4,191 | 6,262 | +49% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 744 | 4,834 | +550% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 10,979 | 4,922 | -55% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,807 | 4,914 | +172% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 9,962 | 4,539 | -54% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,589 | 4,694 | +195% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | 12,281 | 5,448 | -56% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,751 | 4,812 | +175% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | 5,350 | 2,960 | -45% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 879 | 4,380 | +398% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 9,521 | 4,320 | -55% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,442 | 4,599 | +219% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 11,215 | 9,885 | -12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,749 | 5,518 | +215% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 14,269 | 5,160 | -64% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,776 | 4,814 | +73% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 6,487 | 1,958 | -70% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 999 | 4,230 | +323% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 15,661 | 11,380 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,630 | 5,969 | +127% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 7,454 | 6,639 | -11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,543 | 5,105 | +231% | 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, and 19 counted toward the lift figure. The other 3 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of +41 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 19 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.