For Agents · MCP

Your task.
The right skill.

The tunnel uses the same cards as the catalogue. Browse only as deep as needed — or load a broad bundle immediately.

No local installationNo M11 loginRead-only

Broad task

Load 5–10 and go

SEO, Sales, Agents or another broad area → one bundle call → work.

MCP endpoint: https://skills.m11.ch/mcp

Read-only access to published skills. Default 8, maximum 10 skills / 120,000 characters.

Task Packs

Marketing Foundation

Compact two-skill starter: clarify positioning and choose a lead magnet. Use Marketing Launch for the broader eight-skill go-to-market workflow.

Marketing Launch

Build an evidence-led marketing plan from ICP and competition through positioning, campaigns, growth and measurement.

Agent Audit Essentials

Diagnose architecture and context, plan agent-team responsibilities, then organize project context and session handoffs. Memory and cost-runtime reviews remain outside this pack.

Conversion and Activation Review

Review the journey from landing page and lead capture through registration, first value and transparent upgrades.

Campaign Content and Brand Review

Plan a campaign, draft its channel content and review the work against actual brand guidance.

Content and Launch Planning

Prioritize an editorial roadmap and plan how to launch and distribute it across suitable channels.

Customer, Market and Community Research

Understand customer needs, compare competitors and plan a community around real member value.

Lead Magnet to Lifecycle Nurture

Choose a relevant lead magnet, then draft a permission-based nurture journey with entry, suppression and exit rules.

API Contract and Observability

Define the API contract, then plan how to observe its latency, failures and retries. Guidance and checklist; no production changes.

Data Analysis Foundation

Profile a dataset, choose and interpret statistical methods, then validate calculations and conclusions before sharing.

Choose an area

01 · Category

What the MCP returns at this step

04 · Engineering · Security

Application Hardening Guidance

Frame application threats and defensive hardening work from the original checklist.

anwendungshaertungsecurity-and-hardening

Security & Hardening · Original SKILL.md

---
name: security-and-hardening
description: Hardens code against vulnerabilities. Use when auditing an input handler for vulnerabilities, when handling user input, authentication, data storage, or external integrations, or when checking a login flow is safe against the OWASP Top Ten. Use when building any feature that accepts untrusted data, manages user sessions, or interacts with third-party services. Use when auditing dependencies for known vulnerabilities, triaging package-manager audit findings, or assessing supply-chain risk in a new package. Use when personal data or privacy compliance (GDPR, CCPA) is involved.
---

# Security and Hardening

## Overview

Security-first development practices for web applications. Treat every external input as hostile, every secret as sacred, and every authorization check as mandatory. Security isn't a phase — it's a constraint on every line of code that touches user data, authentication, or external systems.

## When to Use

- Building anything that accepts user input
- Implementing authentication or authorization
- Storing or transmitting sensitive data
- Integrating with external APIs or services
- Adding file uploads, webhooks, or callbacks
- Handling payment or PII data

## Process: Threat Model First

Controls bolted on without a threat model are guesses. Before hardening, spend five minutes thinking like an attacker:

1. **Map the trust boundaries.** Where does untrusted data cross into your system? HTTP requests, form fields, file uploads, webhooks, third-party APIs, message queues, and **LLM output** — plus the local values that look internal because the OS handed them to you: another process's command line or environment, filenames on a shared volume, a path in a job payload. Trust follows who *wrote* a value, not which channel delivered it. Every boundary is attack surface.
2. **Name the assets.** What's worth stealing or breaking? Credentials, PII, payment data, admin actions, money movement.
3. **Run STRIDE over each boundary** — a quick lens, not a ceremony:

| Threat | Ask | Typical mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| **S**poofing | Can someone impersonate a user/service? | Authentication, signature verification |
| **T**ampering | Can data be altered in transit or at rest? | Integrity checks, parameterized queries, HTTPS |
| **R**epudiation | Can an action be denied later? | Audit logging of security events |
| **I**nformation disclosure | Can data leak? | Encryption, field allowlists, generic errors |
| **D**enial of service | Can it be overwhelmed? | Rate limiting, input size caps, timeouts |
| **E**levation of privilege | Can a user gain rights they shouldn't? | Authorization checks, least privilege |

4. **Write abuse cases next to use cases.** For each feature, ask "how would I misuse this?" — then make that your first test.

If you can't name the trust boundaries for a feature, you're not ready to secure it. This is OWASP **A04: Insecure Design** — most breaches begin in design, not code.

## The Three-Tier Boundary System

### Always Do (No Exceptions)

- **Validate all external input** at the system boundary (API routes, form handlers)
- **Parameterize all database queries** — never concatenate user input into SQL
- **Encode output** to prevent XSS (use framework auto-escaping, don't bypass it)
- **Use HTTPS** for all external communication
- **Hash passwords** with bcrypt/scrypt/argon2 (never store plaintext)
- **Set security headers** (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options)
- **Use httpOnly, secure, sameSite cookies** for sessions
- **Run the detected package manager's native audit** against the committed lockfile before every release

### Ask First (Requires Human Approval)

- Adding new authentication flows or changing auth logic
- Storing new categories of sensitive data (PII, payment info)
- Adding new external service integrations
- Changing CORS configuration
- Adding file upload handlers
- Modifying rate limiting or throttling
- Granting elevated permissions or roles

### Never Do

- **Never commit secrets** to version control (API keys, passwords, tokens)
- **Never log sensitive data** (passwords, tokens, full credit card numbers)
- **Never trust client-side validation** as a security boundary
- **Never disable security headers** for convenience
- **Never use `eval()` or `innerHTML`** with user-provided data
- **Never store sessions in client-accessible storage** (localStorage for auth tokens)
- **Never expose stack traces** or internal error details to users

## Hardening Controls

The rules below are the workflow; a concrete implementation of each lives in [references/hardening-patterns.md](references/hardening-patterns.md). Open the section you need when you reach that code, not before.

### Injection, XSS, and access control

- Parameterize every query. Never build SQL, NoSQL, or shell commands from input strings.
- Encode output through the framework's auto-escaping. If raw HTML is unavoidable, sanitize with an allowlist sanitizer first.
- Check **authorization** on every request, not just authentication: the authenticated user must own, or be permitted on, the specific resource (A01, IDOR).

Patterns: [Injection](references/hardening-patterns.md#injection), [XSS](references/hardening-patterns.md#cross-site-scripting-xss), [Access control](references/hardening-patterns.md#broken-access-control).

### Authentication and sessions

- Hash passwords with bcrypt (≥12 rounds), scrypt, or argon2. The session secret comes from the environment, never from code.
- Session cookies are `httpOnly`, `secure`, and `sameSite: 'lax'` or `'strict'` (the CSRF defense; `'none'` sends the cookie on cross-site requests), with a bounded `maxAge`.

Pattern: [Authentication](references/hardening-patterns.md#broken-authentication).

### Headers, CORS, and responses

- Security headers on every response (helmet or the framework equivalent); CSP starts from `default-src 'self'` and is tightened, not loosened.
- CORS restricted to an explicit origin list from configuration. Never `*` with credentials.
- Strip sensitive fields (`passwordHash`, reset tokens) before any response. Error bodies are generic; internals go to server logs only.

Patterns: [Misconfiguration](references/hardening-patterns.md#security-misconfiguration), [Sensitive data exposure](references/hardening-patterns.md#sensitive-data-exposure).

### Input validation and uploads

- Validate at the boundary with a schema: allowlisted shape, lengths, enums, formats. Reject with 422 and structured details; downstream code uses only the parsed, typed value.
- Uploads: allowlist MIME types, cap size, verify content (magic bytes) when it matters. The extension proves nothing.

Patterns: [Schema validation](references/hardening-patterns.md#schema-validation-at-boundaries), [File upload](references/hardening-patterns.md#file-upload-safety).

### Server-side fetches (SSRF)

Any URL the user influences — webhooks, import-from-URL, image proxies, link previews — can be aimed at internal services. Allowlist scheme and host, resolve **all** DNS records and reject any private or reserved address (loopback, link-local `169.254.169.254`, private, unique-local, for IPv4 and IPv6), and forbid redirects. That check still has a DNS-rebinding TOCTOU gap: for high-risk surfaces, pin the resolved IP or put a filtering agent in front.

Pattern: [SSRF](references/hardening-patterns.md#server-side-request-forgery-ssrf).

### Destructive operations on derived paths

A delete, move, or overwrite is only as safe as the value naming its target, and trust follows who *wrote* that value, not which channel delivered it: another process's command line is as attacker-controlled as a form field. A shape check proves well-formedness, not authorization. Before the call, require all three: the resolved target (symlinks resolved) sits under an **allowlisted root**; it is at least one level **below** that root; and it carries **ownership evidence read before the operation**. On refusal, log the rejected target and stop; never fall back to a broader default path.

Why the check is weaker than it reads (marker self-attestation, check/use races): [Destructive paths](references/hardening-patterns.md#destructive-operations-on-derived-paths). Worked code: `../../references/security-checklist.md`.

### Rate limiting

Limit the API generally and auth endpoints strictly (about 10 attempts per 15 minutes). Once more than one process serves traffic, in-memory counters silently become `max × instances`, or never fire on serverless: back the limiter with a shared store.

Pattern: [Rate limiting](references/hardening-patterns.md#rate-limiting).

### Secrets

Secrets come from the environment. `.env.example` is committed with placeholders; real `.env*` files and key material are gitignored; grep the staged diff before committing. **A secret that reaches a remote is compromised the moment it lands: rotate it first, then purge history.**

Pattern: [Secrets management](references/hardening-patterns.md#secrets-management).

### Dependencies and supply chain

1. **Find the installation boundary and manager.** Use the workspace root that owns the lockfile, or an independent nested project only when it is outside that workspace. Corroborate `packageManager` (when present), the lockfile, and CI; stop on disagreement or competing lockfiles. Pin the manager version.
2. **Block dependency scripts before first execution.** Bootstrap with scripts disabled or a documented fail-closed policy, inspect the pending script source, approve only the minimum, commit the policy, then verify with a clean frozen/immutable install. Never blanket-approve.
3. **Run the native audit against the committed lockfile before every release.** Triage critical/high by **reachability** (runtime, build, test, deploy paths) and fix availability. Never apply forced remediation (`npm audit fix --force` or equivalent) automatically, since forced fixes may cross declared dependency ranges; preview, read changelogs, test each upgrade. Document every deferral with a reason and a review date.
4. **Audits only match known advisories.** They do not catch a newly malicious or typosquatted package (`cross-env` vs `crossenv`). Review new dependencies, lockfile diffs, and script-policy changes together: ownership, maintenance, release age, provenance, transitive graph. Verify registry signatures where supported (`npm audit signatures`, `pnpm audit signatures`) and treat their absence as a signal to investigate, not automatic proof of compromise (A06, LLM03).

Triage decision tree: [Dependency audit triage](references/hardening-patterns.md#dependency-audit-triage). Manager matrix and install-script gate: `../../references/security-checklist.md`.

### Personal data and privacy

Hardening asks "can an attacker read it?" Privacy asks "should *we* hold it at all, and for how long?" The cheapest data to protect, breach, and comply over is the data you never collected; treat personal data as a liability to minimize.

- **Classify fields as you add them** (non-personal, PII, sensitive) and handle each class accordingly. You cannot protect, or honor a deletion request for, data you cannot find.
- **Collect only against a stated purpose.** "Might be useful later" is latent breach scope, not a purpose. Keep PII out of telemetry (the `observability-and-instrumentation` skill makes the same point from the ops side).
- **Set retention up front, then actually delete.** Every personal-data store needs a TTL and a working deletion path, including backups, caches, search indexes, and analytics copies.
- **Support the data-subject rights your jurisdiction requires** (GDPR, CCPA, and kin): export, correct, delete. Design the schema so a user's data is findable and erasable, not smeared irreversibly across systems.
- **Consent gates collection and third-party sharing, and is auditable.** Sending PII to an analytics, ad, or LLM vendor is sharing; the vendor needs a data-processing agreement. Make region a configurable policy, not a hardcoded assumption.

Classification table: [Data classification](references/hardening-patterns.md#data-classification). A privacy incident starts the breach-notification clock; run the postmortem with the `debugging-and-error-recovery` skill.

### AI / LLM features

Calling an LLM — chatbots, summarizers, agents, RAG — adds a new attack surface; map it to the [OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications (2025)](https://genai.owasp.org/llm-top-10/):

- **Model output is untrusted input** (LLM05). Never into `eval`, SQL, a shell, `innerHTML`, or a file path; parse defensively, validate against a schema, then encode.
- **Prompts can be hijacked** (LLM01). Untrusted text in the context — a user message, a fetched page, a PDF — can carry instructions. The system prompt is not a security boundary; enforce permissions in code.
- **Keep secrets, other tenants' data, and the full system prompt out of the context window** (LLM02, LLM07); scope tool permissions, validate every tool argument, and confirm destructive actions (LLM06); cap tokens, request rate, and recursion depth (LLM10); partition RAG embeddings per tenant and validate documents before indexing (LLM08).

Pattern: [LLM output handling](references/hardening-patterns.md#llm-output-handling).

## Review Checklist

Before sign-off, walk `../../references/security-checklist.md`: it covers authentication, authorization, input, data protection and privacy, headers and CORS, dependencies and supply chain, AI/LLM, and error handling, plus the OWASP quick-reference tables.

## Common Rationalizations

| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|---|
| "This is an internal tool, security doesn't matter" | Internal tools get compromised. Attackers target the weakest link. |
| "We'll add security later" | Security retrofitting is 10x harder than building it in. Add it now. |
| "No one would try to exploit this" | Automated scanners will find it. Security by obscurity is not security. |
| "The framework handles security" | Frameworks provide tools, not guarantees. You still need to use them correctly. |
| "It's just a prototype" | Prototypes become production. Security habits from day one. |
| "Threat modeling is overkill here" | Five minutes of "how would I attack this?" prevents the design flaws no control can patch later. |
| "It's just LLM output, it's only text" | That "text" can be a SQL statement, a script tag, or a shell command. Treat it like any untrusted input. |
| "The audit passed, so the dependency is safe" | Audits match known advisories. They do not detect a newly malicious package or make unreviewed install scripts safe to execute. |
| "Collect it now, we might need it later" | Data you don't hold can't be breached, subpoenaed, or mis-deleted. "Might need it" is breach scope, not a purpose. |
| "We'll handle deletion requests manually" | Manual erasure misses backups, caches, and analytics copies. If the schema can't find a user's data, you can't honor the request — design for it. |
| "Compliance is legal's problem, not ours" | Export, deletion, retention, and consent are schema and code. Legal can't bolt them on after you've smeared PII across ten systems. |

## Red Flags

- User input passed directly to database queries, shell commands, or HTML rendering
- A delete, move, or overwrite whose target comes from a payload, a config value, or another process's command line, guarded only by a shape check on the path
- Secrets in source code or commit history
- API endpoints without authentication or authorization checks
- Missing CORS configuration or wildcard (`*`) origins
- No rate limiting on authentication endpoints, or an in-memory limiter in front of more than one instance
- Stack traces or internal errors exposed to users
- Dependencies with known critical vulnerabilities, competing lockfiles at one installation boundary, non-reproducible installs, or blanket-approved scripts
- Server fetches user-supplied URLs without an allowlist (SSRF)
- LLM/model output passed into a query, the DOM, a shell, or `eval`
- Secrets, PII, or the full system prompt placed inside an LLM context window
- Personal data collected with no stated purpose, retention limit, or deletion path
- PII sent to analytics/ad/LLM vendors with no consent or data-processing agreement
- "Delete my account" that only flips a flag while the personal data lingers in stores and backups

## Verification

After implementing security-relevant code:

- [ ] The native audit has no unmitigated reachable critical/high findings; CI preserves the authoritative lockfile and blocks unreviewed dependency scripts
- [ ] No secrets in source code or git history
- [ ] All user input validated at system boundaries
- [ ] Destructive filesystem operations resolve symlinks, then verify allowlisted root, minimum depth, and ownership before running
- [ ] Authentication and authorization checked on every protected endpoint
- [ ] Security headers present in response (check with browser DevTools)
- [ ] Error responses don't expose internal details
- [ ] Rate limiting active on auth endpoints, backed by a shared store when more than one instance serves traffic
- [ ] Server-side URL fetches validated against an allowlist (no SSRF)
- [ ] LLM/model output validated and encoded before use (if AI features present)
- [ ] Personal data is classified, minimized to a stated purpose, and has a retention limit
- [ ] Deletion and export requests work end-to-end (including backups, caches, and analytics copies)

When to use

Frame application threats and defensive hardening work from the original checklist.

What you get

The complete original workflow with source attribution and declared limitations.

How it works

Confirm inputs and dependencies, then apply relevant instructions within the actual authorized task.

Requirements

Application architecture, assets, trust boundaries and authorized assessment scope.

Delivery and review notes

Published as attributed source guidance after an obvious-danger screen, not functional certification. hardening-patterns.md and security-checklist.md are not supplied. SameSite alone is not a universal CSRF defense; design for the actual threat model. Legal/privacy claims and OWASP numbering are version-sensitive and unverified. This text is not a security certification; no exploitation, dependency installation or code execution performed.

Starting prompt

Use Application Hardening Guidance for [TASK]. Ask for missing inputs: Application architecture, assets, trust boundaries and authorized assessment scope. Apply the M11 corrections and distinguish evidence, assumptions and unavailable tooling.

Not for

Claiming runtime validation, installing dependencies or taking external actions merely because the source describes them. Respect the actual task scope and declared limitations.

What M11 added

German discovery terms, task inputs and explicit source limitations. Original authorship remains separate from M11 curation. Published as attributed source guidance after an obvious-danger screen, not functional certification. hardening-patterns.md and security-checklist.md are not supplied. SameSite alone is not a universal CSRF defense; design for the actual threat model. Legal/privacy claims and OWASP numbering are version-sensitive and unverified. This text is not a security certification; no exploitation, dependency installation or code execution performed.

Original authorship remains with addyosmani/agent-skills · Original source ↗

Original license & copyright

MIT License

Copyright (c) 2025 Addy Osmani

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.

Source SHA-256: 2e3fc60eed5aba97fe416f3f3c9317fdb014a682925ec70a733c3ff99e4b9858
Snapshot checked: 2026-09-28T15:32:21.716870+00:00

Find a skill.Get to work.

All skills

Multi-Agent Orchestration

AI Context Window Audit

AI Agent Architecture Audit

AI Skill Discovery

Lead Magnet Strategy

Ideal Customer Profile

Go-to-Market Strategy

Marketing Campaign Ideas

Product Growth Loops

Competitor Analysis

North Star Metric

Product Positioning

Product Vision

Go-to-Market Motion Selection

Customer Feedback and JTBD Analysis

PESTLE Market Environment Analysis

Customer Journey Mapping

Ansoff Growth Options

Data Analysis Validation

Dataset Profiling

Statistical Analysis Guidance

Programmatic SEO Planning

Landing Page and Form Conversion Review

Paywall and Upgrade Planning

Signup and Registration Review

User Onboarding and Activation

Popup and Modal Planning

Email Sequence Copy and Flow

Marketing Campaign Planning

Marketing Content Drafting

Brand Voice and Content Review

Marketing Performance Reporting

Sales Company Research

Company and Contact Enrichment

Website Information Architecture

Content Strategy and Editorial Roadmap

Product Launch Planning

Customer Research and Voice of Customer

Community Growth and Member Experience

Competitor Research Profiles

Roadmap and Release Communication

Lifecycle Email Sequences

API Contracts and Interface Design

Observability and Instrumentation Planning

Agent Context and Session Handoff

Product Discovery Sprint

Deal Quality Scoring

Enrichment Waterfall Design

Customer Retention Playbook

Sales Coaching Practice

Revenue Cohort Analysis

Intent Signal Scoring

Customer Identity Matching

Segment Activation Planning

Sales Call Review

Retention Dashboard Design

Sales Coaching Competencies

Offer Delivery Design

Offer Value Communication

Service Productization

Conversion Hypothesis Prioritization

Braze Engagement Guidance

Brand Voice Guide Design

Content Pipeline Orchestration

Website Brand Profile

Buyer Objection Clarification

Klaviyo Integration Guidance

Offer Bonus Planning

Klaviyo Marketing Review

Cross-Platform Advertising Review

Expertise Business Model

LinkedIn Advertising Guidance

TikTok Advertising Guidance

Evidence Research Brief

Cinematic Video Prompts

Visual Prompt Model Adaptation

Visual Prompt Diagnostics

Short Film Development

Find a skill.
Get to work.