vulnerability-scanner▌
davila7/claude-code-templates · updated Apr 8, 2026
MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.
Think like an attacker, defend like an expert. 2025 threat landscape awareness.
Vulnerability Scanner
Think like an attacker, defend like an expert. 2025 threat landscape awareness.
🔧 Runtime Scripts
Execute for automated validation:
| Script | Purpose | Usage |
|---|---|---|
scripts/security_scan.py |
Validate security principles applied | python scripts/security_scan.py <project_path> |
📋 Reference Files
| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
| checklists.md | OWASP Top 10, Auth, API, Data protection checklists |
1. Security Expert Mindset
Core Principles
| Principle | Application |
|---|---|
| Assume Breach | Design as if attacker already inside |
| Zero Trust | Never trust, always verify |
| Defense in Depth | Multiple layers, no single point |
| Least Privilege | Minimum required access only |
| Fail Secure | On error, deny access |
Threat Modeling Questions
Before scanning, ask:
- What are we protecting? (Assets)
- Who would attack? (Threat actors)
- How would they attack? (Attack vectors)
- What's the impact? (Business risk)
2. OWASP Top 10:2025
Risk Categories
| Rank | Category | Think About |
|---|---|---|
| A01 | Broken Access Control | Who can access what? IDOR, SSRF |
| A02 | Security Misconfiguration | Defaults, headers, exposed services |
| A03 | Software Supply Chain 🆕 | Dependencies, CI/CD, build integrity |
| A04 | Cryptographic Failures | Weak crypto, exposed secrets |
| A05 | Injection | User input → system commands |
| A06 | Insecure Design | Flawed architecture |
| A07 | Authentication Failures | Session, credential management |
| A08 | Integrity Failures | Unsigned updates, tampered data |
| A09 | Logging & Alerting | Blind spots, no monitoring |
| A10 | Exceptional Conditions 🆕 | Error handling, fail-open states |
2025 Key Changes
2021 → 2025 Shifts:
├── SSRF merged into A01 (Access Control)
├── A02 elevated (Cloud/Container configs)
├── A03 NEW: Supply Chain (major focus)
├── A10 NEW: Exceptional Conditions
└── Focus shift: Root causes > Symptoms
3. Supply Chain Security (A03)
Attack Surface
| Vector | Risk | Question to Ask |
|---|---|---|
| Dependencies | Malicious packages | Do we audit new deps? |
| Lock files | Integrity attacks | Are they committed? |
| Build pipeline | CI/CD compromise | Who can modify? |
| Registry | Typosquatting | Verified sources? |
Defense Principles
- Verify package integrity (checksums)
- Pin versions, audit updates
- Use private registries for critical deps
- Sign and verify artifacts
4. Attack Surface Mapping
What to Map
| Category | Elements |
|---|---|
| Entry Points | APIs, forms, file uploads |
| Data Flows | Input → Process → Output |
| Trust Boundaries | Where auth/authz checked |
| Assets | Secrets, PII, business data |
Prioritization Matrix
Risk = Likelihood × Impact
High Impact + High Likelihood → CRITICAL
High Impact + Low Likelihood → HIGH
Low Impact + High Likelihood → MEDIUM
Low Impact + Low Likelihood → LOW
5. Risk Prioritization
CVSS + Context
| Factor | Weight | Question |
|---|---|---|
| CVSS Score | Base severity | How severe is the vuln? |
| EPSS Score | Exploit likelihood | Is it being exploited? |
| Asset Value | Business context | What's at risk? |
| Exposure | Attack surface | Internet-facing? |
Prioritization Decision Tree
Is it actively exploited (EPSS >0.5)?
├── YES → CRITICAL: Immediate action
└── NO → Check CVSS
├── CVSS ≥9.0 → HIGH
├── CVSS 7.0-8.9 → Consider asset value
└── CVSS <7.0 → Schedule for later
6. Exceptional Conditions (A10 - New)
Fail-Open vs Fail-Closed
| Scenario | Fail-Open (BAD) | Fail-Closed (GOOD) |
|---|---|---|
| Auth error | Allow access | Deny access |
| Parsing fails | Accept input | Reject input |
| Timeout | Retry forever | Limit + abort |
What to Check
- Exception handlers that catch-all and ignore
- Missing error handling on security operations
- Race conditions in auth/authz
- Resource exhaustion scenarios
7. Scanning Methodology
Phase-Based Approach
1. RECONNAISSANCE
└── Understand the target
├── Technology stack
├── Entry points
└── Data flows
2. DISCOVERY
└── Identify potential issues
├── Configuration review
├── Dependency analysis
└── Code pattern search
3. ANALYSIS
└── Validate and prioritize
├── False positive elimination
├── Risk scoring
└── Attack chain mapping
4. REPORTING
└── Actionable findings
├── Clear reproduction steps
├── Business impact
└── Remediation guidance
8. Code Pattern Analysis
High-Risk Patterns
| Pattern | Risk | Look For |
|---|---|---|
| String concat in queries | Injection | "SELECT * FROM " + user_input |
| Dynamic code execution | RCE | eval(), exec(), Function() |
| Unsafe deserialization | RCE | pickle.loads(), unserialize() |
| Path manipulation | Traversal | User input in file paths |
| Disabled security | Various | verify=False, --insecure |
Secret Patterns
| Type | Indicators |
|---|---|
| API Keys | api_key, apikey, high entropy |
| Tokens | token, bearer, jwt |
| Credentials | password, secret, key |
| Cloud | AWS_, AZURE_, GCP_ prefixes |
9. Cloud Security Considerations
Shared Responsibility
| Layer | You Own | Provider Owns |
|---|---|---|
| Data | ✅ | ❌ |
| Application | ✅ | ❌ |
| OS/Runtime | Depends | Depends |
| Infrastructure | ❌ | ✅ |
Cloud-Specific Checks
- IAM: Least privilege applied?
- Storage: Public buckets?
- Network: Security groups tightened?
- Secrets: Using secrets manager?
10. Anti-Patterns
| ❌ Don't | ✅ Do |
|---|---|
| Scan without understanding | Map attack surface first |
| Alert on every CVE | Prioritize by exploitability + asset |
| Ignore false positives | Maintain verified baseline |
| Fix symptoms only | Address root causes |
| Scan once before deploy | Continuous scanning |
| Trust third-party deps blindly | Verify integrity, audit code |
11. Reporting Principles
Finding Structure
Each finding should answer:
- What? - Clear vulnerability description
- Where? - Exact location (file, line, endpoint)
- Why? - Root cause explanation
- Impact? - Business consequence
- How to fix? - Specific remediation
Severity Classification
| Severity | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Critical | RCE, auth bypass, mass data exposure |
| High | Data exposure, privilege escalation |
| Medium | Limited scope, requires conditions |
| Low | Informational, best practice |
Remember: Vulnerability scanning finds issues. Expert thinking prioritizes what matters. Always ask: "What would an attacker do with this?"
How to use vulnerability-scanner on Cursor
AI-first code editor with Composer
Prerequisites
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
- ›Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
- ›Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with
node --version) - ›Active project directory or workspace where you want to add vulnerability-scanner
Execute installation command
Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
The skills CLI fetches vulnerability-scanner from GitHub repository davila7/claude-code-templates and configures it for Cursor.
Select Cursor when prompted
The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:
Verify installation
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Reload or restart Cursor to activate vulnerability-scanner. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /vulnerability-scanner) or your agent's skill management interface.
Security & Verification Notice
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.
List & Monetize Your Skill
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Use Cases▌
User Story & Requirements Generation
Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs
Example
Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios
Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage
Competitive Analysis
Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps
Example
Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities
Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days
Roadmap Prioritization
Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs
Example
Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale
Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster
Stakeholder Communication
Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations
Example
Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement
Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead
Implementation Guide▌
Prerequisites
- ›Claude Desktop or compatible AI client
- ›Access to product documentation and roadmap tools (Jira, Notion, etc.)
- ›Understanding of product management frameworks (RICE, Jobs-to-be-Done, etc.)
- ›Stakeholder contact information and communication channels
Time Estimate
30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements
Installation Steps
- 1.Install product management skill
- 2.Start with user story generation for known feature
- 3.Progress to competitive analysis: research 2-3 competitors
- 4.Use for roadmap prioritization: apply RICE/ICE scoring
- 5.Draft stakeholder communications and refine based on feedback
- 6.Build template library for recurring PM tasks
- 7.Share effective prompts with product team
Common Pitfalls
- ⚠Not validating competitive research—verify facts before sharing
- ⚠Accepting user stories without involving engineering team
- ⚠Over-relying on frameworks without qualitative judgment
- ⚠Not customizing outputs to company culture and communication style
- ⚠Skipping stakeholder validation of generated requirements
Best Practices▌
✓ Do
- +Validate research and competitive analysis with real data
- +Collaborate with engineering when generating technical requirements
- +Customize frameworks and templates to your company context
- +Use skill for first drafts, refine with stakeholder input
- +Document successful prompt patterns for PM tasks
- +Combine AI efficiency with human judgment and intuition
✗ Don't
- −Don't publish competitive analysis without fact-checking
- −Don't finalize user stories without engineering review
- −Don't make prioritization decisions solely on AI scoring
- −Don't skip customer validation of generated requirements
- −Don't ignore company-specific context and culture
💡 Pro Tips
- ★Provide context: company goals, constraints, customer feedback
- ★Ask for alternatives: 'Show 3 ways to prioritize this roadmap'
- ★Request stakeholder-specific formatting: 'Executive summary vs. engineering spec'
- ★Use skill for 70% generation + 30% customization to company needs
When to Use This▌
✓ Use When
Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.
✗ Avoid When
Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.
Learning Path▌
- 1Basic: user stories, feature specs, status updates
- 2Intermediate: competitive analysis, prioritization frameworks, PRDs
- 3Advanced: product strategy, go-to-market planning, OKR setting
- 4Expert: product vision, market positioning, business model innovation
Discussion
Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)- No comments yet — start the thread.
Ratings
4.5★★★★★63 reviews- ★★★★★Ren Tandon· Dec 24, 2024
vulnerability-scanner is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
- ★★★★★Ren Khanna· Dec 20, 2024
Registry listing for vulnerability-scanner matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
- ★★★★★Noah Johnson· Dec 16, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: vulnerability-scanner is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
- ★★★★★Sophia Wang· Dec 12, 2024
vulnerability-scanner has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
- ★★★★★Ava Chen· Dec 4, 2024
vulnerability-scanner reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- ★★★★★Sofia Reddy· Nov 27, 2024
vulnerability-scanner reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- ★★★★★Lucas Agarwal· Nov 15, 2024
Useful defaults in vulnerability-scanner — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
- ★★★★★Valentina Rahman· Nov 7, 2024
We added vulnerability-scanner from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
- ★★★★★Charlotte Ramirez· Nov 3, 2024
vulnerability-scanner fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
- ★★★★★Valentina Torres· Oct 26, 2024
vulnerability-scanner fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
showing 1-10 of 63