sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills/django-access-review
- community
Checking that the SKILL.md file is still in the repository.
Use when reviewing Django or DRF access control: trace authorization flows, IDOR risks, object permissions, query scoping and tenant isolation before proposing a verified fix.
Install
npx vskill@latest install sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills/django-access-reviewSKILL.md
Django Access Control & IDOR Review
Find access control vulnerabilities by investigating how the codebase answers one question:
Can User A access, modify, or delete User B's data?
When to Use
- You need to review Django or DRF code for access control gaps, IDOR risk, or object-level authorization failures.
- The task involves confirming whether one user can access, modify, or delete another user's data.
- You want an investigation-driven authorization review instead of generic pattern matching.
Philosophy: Investigation Over Pattern Matching
Do NOT scan for predefined vulnerable patterns. Instead:
- Understand how authorization works in THIS codebase
- Ask questions about specific data flows
- Trace code to find where (or if) access checks happen
- Report only what you've confirmed through investigation
Every codebase implements authorization differently. Your job is to understand this specific implementation, then find gaps.
Phase 1: Understand the Authorization Model
Before looking for bugs, answer these questions about the codebase:
How is authorization enforced?
Research the codebase to find:
Investigation commands
Do not proceed until you understand the authorization model.
Phase 2: Map the Attack Surface
Identify endpoints that handle user-specific data:
What resources exist?
What operations are exposed?
For each resource, map:
- List endpoints - what data is returned?
- Detail/retrieve endpoints - how is the object fetched?
- Create endpoints - who sets the owner?
- Update endpoints - can users modify others' data?
- Delete endpoints - can users delete others' data?
- Custom actions - what do they access?
Phase 3: Ask Questions and Investigate
For each endpoint that handles user data, ask:
The Core Question
"If I'm User A and I know the ID of User B's resource, can I access it?"
Trace the code to answer this:
Follow-Up Questions
Phase 4: Trace Specific Flows
Pick a concrete endpoint and trace it completely.
Example Investigation
What to look for when tracing
Phase 5: Report Findings
Only report issues you've confirmed through investigation.
Confidence Levels
| Level | Meaning | Action | |
|---|---|---|---|
| HIGH | Traced the flow, confirmed no check exists | Report with evidence | |
| MEDIUM | Check may exist but couldn't confirm | Note for manual verification | |
| LOW | Theoretical, likely mitigated | Do not report |
Suggested Fixes Must Enforce, Not Document
Bad fix: Adding a comment saying "caller must validate permissions" Good fix: Adding code that actually validates permissions
A comment or docstring does not enforce authorization. Your suggested fix must include actual code that:
- Validates the user has permission before proceeding
- Raises an exception or returns an error if unauthorized
- Enforces the stated ownership/tenant policy on the shown path, with negative tests; a small helper does not prove every endpoint is protected.
Example of a BAD fix suggestion:
Example of a GOOD fix suggestion:
This example assumes individually owned resources and a user supplied by the server's authenticated request context, never by a user-controlled request body. For organization roles or shared resources, use the actual verified membership policy instead of replacing it with a simplistic ownership check. The scoped lookup returns 404 for an absent or unowned resource and does not expose its data. Test anonymous access, the owner, another user and another tenant, including bulk, create and custom-action paths; importing a permission class alone is not proof.
If you can't determine the right enforcement mechanism, say so - but never suggest documentation as the fix.
Report Format
Common Django Authorization Patterns
These are patterns you might find - not a checklist to match against.
Query Scoping
Permission Enforcement
Ownership Assignment
Investigation Checklist
Use this to guide your review, not as a pass/fail checklist:
Limitations
- Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
- Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
- Review code read-only by default. Exercise negative requests only against authorized disposable/staging resources; do not probe real users’ objects merely to demonstrate an IDOR.
- Examples are project integration patterns, not a complete Django application; adapt imports, relationships and permission semantics to the actual models.
Security
- Security scanPassed, 90 of 100Pattern checks on the skill's files.
- Model reviewPassed
Quality evaluation
- Task evaluationNot runNo evaluation yet. Run one in Skill Studio.
Source
- SKILL.md in the repositoryCheckingskills/django-access-review/SKILL.md
Popularity
- Repository stars
- 23,032
- Repository forks
- 3,967
- Repository npm downloads, 7 days
- 11,772
- 7-day trend score
- 72
Stars and forks are for the whole GitHub repository, not this skill alone. Downloads are for the repository's npm package. Refreshed 17 Mar 2026, 7 months ago.
Works with
Any agent vskill installs to: 56 targets in all. These 39 have a page on this site.
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- GitHub Copilot
- Windsurf
- Codex
- Gemini CLI
- Cline
- Amp
- Roo Code
- Goose
- Continue
- Kilo Code
- Junie
- Trae
- OpenHands
- Qwen Code
- AI Agent
- Tabnine Chat
- Sourcegraph Cody
- Amazon Q
- Firebase Genkit
- Sweep
- Devin
- Phind
- Mentat
- Claude Desktop
- Aider
- GPT Pilot
- Plandex
- bolt.new
- v0
- Replit Agent
- Anse
- TypingMind
- BetterChatGPT
- LibreChat
- Warp AI
- Pieces
- Fig AI
Embed badge
[](https://verified-skill.com/skills/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills/django-access-review)