<< All versions

Skill v1.0.0

currentLLM-judged scan90/100
zey-2/security_skillpacks/2-3-5-secure-input-and-goal-management
──Details
PublishedOctober 21, 2026 at 03:45 PM
Content Hashsha256:98ee1f35cf121e03...
Git SHA7ebd69608c40
──Files
Files (1 file, 2.8 KB)
SKILL.md2.8 KBactive
SKILL.md · 72 lines · 2.8 KB

version: "1.0.0" name: mandate-2-3-5-code-evaluation description: Evaluate compliance for Mandate 2.3.5 (Secure Input and Goal Management) using repository code and configuration analysis. Use when producing deterministic pass/fail findings with severity, mapped mitigated vulnerabilities, and file-level evidence.


Mandate 2.3.5 Code Evaluation Skill

Mandate

  • ID: 2.3.5
  • Title: Secure Input and Goal Management

Mitigates

  • ML01 Input Manipulation Attack
  • LLM01 Prompt Injection
  • ASI01 Agent Goal Hijack
  • MCP02 Prompt Injection

Inputs

  • Input handling code
  • Prompt construction code
  • Goal/state management code
  • Policy and moderation modules

Workflow

  1. Enumerate input ingress points.
  • User chat, uploaded files, tool outputs, memory retrieval, web/API connectors.
  1. Map ingress to model prompts and goal update functions.
  • Identify direct concatenation or untrusted interpolation points.
  1. Validate layered filtering.
  • Verify syntactic filters (patterns, token constraints, format rules).
  • Verify semantic/policy filters (classifier/moderation/rule engine).
  1. Validate explicit injection defenses.
  • Check for jailbreak/prompt-injection detection and denial flows.
  1. Validate goal protection controls.
  • Confirm system-level goals and tool permissions are immutable by default.
  • Confirm significant goal changes require explicit human approval.
  1. Validate fallback behavior.
  • Verify unknown/ambiguous inputs trigger safe fallback (block/ask-clarify) rather than execution.
  1. Validate logging and traceability.
  • Ensure blocked/allowed decisions and policy rationale are logged for review.
  1. Emit findings with ingress point, vulnerable path, and missing control.

Decision Rules

  • Pass if all untrusted ingress points have layered filtering and system-goal mutations are human-gated.
  • Fail if any ingress reaches prompts/goal changes without required controls.

Severity Rules

  • Critical: direct unfiltered prompt path to privileged action or goal mutation.
  • High: filtering exists but only one layer or easy bypass.
  • Medium: controls present but poor observability.

Output Template

json
{
"mandate_id": "2.3.5",
"status": "fail",
"severity": "high",
"vulnerability_tags": ["ML01", "LLM01", "ASI01", "MCP02"],
"evidence": [
{"file": "src/agent/promptBuilder.ts", "line": 44, "detail": "User input concatenated without sanitization/policy filter"},
{"file": "src/agent/goals.ts", "line": 93, "detail": "System goal update endpoint has no approval gate"}
],
"remediation": "Add syntactic and semantic input filters and require explicit human approval for goal changes."
}

Guardrails

  • Use code and repo configuration evidence only.
  • Always include file-level evidence for each finding.
  • If required evidence is missing in code, mark control as not implemented.
All versions