claude-code-complete-agent/HARDENING-PLAN.md

Hardening Plan: Claude Code Complete Agent

Make this repo a demonstrable proof that Claude Code handles OpenClaw's security challenges — not just a claim, but evidence.

Context

security/openclaw-security-assessment.md documents 9 OpenClaw CVEs and maps them to Claude Code mitigations. But the repo itself doesn't yet demonstrate these mitigations. The hooks are demo shell scripts, settings.json is basic, and no scan data exists.

Tasks

1. Harden settings.json

Replace the demo allow/deny lists with a production-quality permission model that maps to specific OpenClaw CVEs.

Current state: Basic glob patterns (Bash(ls:*), Bash(rm -rf *)) Target state: Scoped permissions with clear security rationale

File: .claude/settings.json

Reference: llm-security reference-config-generator.mjs output for what Grade A looks like.

2. Upgrade hooks to production quality

The current hooks/pre-tool-use.sh and hooks/post-tool-use.sh are demo bash scripts with grep-based pattern matching. Replace with hooks that demonstrate real security patterns.

Option A: Document which llm-security hooks cover which CVEs and recommend users install the llm-security plugin.

Option B: Include lightweight standalone hooks in this repo that demonstrate the patterns (not the full llm-security suite).

Option A is more honest. Option B duplicates work.

Files: hooks/, .claude/settings.json (hook config)

3. Create CVE-to-mitigation mapping

Add a document that explicitly connects each OpenClaw CVE to the specific Claude Code feature or configuration that prevents it.

CVE	Attack	Claude Code defense	Where configured
CVE-2026-22172	Client self-declares scope	Single-user, no scope model	Architecture
CVE-2026-25253	WebSocket hijack	No gateway/port	Architecture
CVE-2026-32048	Sandbox child escape	Permission hooks	settings.json
CVE-2026-30741	Prompt injection RCE	pre-prompt-inject-scan	llm-security plugin
...	...	...	...

File: security/cve-mitigation-map.md

4. Run security scan and include results

Run /security posture and /security scan against the repo. Include the results as documentation (not raw JSON — formatted summary with grade).

File: security/scan-results.md

5. Update security/README.md

Add the new documents to the index. Rewrite the intro to position the security/ directory as evidence, not just docs.

6. Update README.md security section

Reference the scan results and CVE mapping. The security section should answer: "How do I know this is actually secure?"

Verification

• settings.json has scoped permissions (not Bash(*))
• Each OpenClaw CVE maps to a specific defense in this repo
• Security scan results included and show Grade B or higher
• README security section references evidence, not just claims
• All changes committed and pushed to Forgejo

Estimated scope

6 files modified/created. One session. No dependencies added.