open/llm-security
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Releases Wiki Activity Actions
llm-security/commands/posture.md
Kjell Tore Guttormsen f153f969a0 feat(ultraplan-local): v1.6.0 — /ultraresearch-local deep research command 
Add /ultraresearch-local for structured research combining local codebase
analysis with external knowledge via parallel agent swarms. Produces research
briefs with triangulation, confidence ratings, and source quality assessment.

New command: /ultraresearch-local with modes --quick, --local, --external, --fg.
New agents: research-orchestrator (opus), docs-researcher, community-researcher,
security-researcher, contrarian-researcher, gemini-bridge (all sonnet).
New template: research-brief-template.md.

Integration: --research flag in /ultraplan-local accepts pre-built research
briefs (up to 3), enriches the interview and exploration phases. Planning
orchestrator cross-references brief findings during synthesis.

Design principle: Context Engineering — right information to right agent at
right time. Research briefs are structured artifacts in the pipeline:
ultraresearch → brief → ultraplan --research → plan → ultraexecute.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-04-08 08:58:35 +02:00

1.6 KiB
Raw Blame History

name description allowed-tools model
security:posture Quick security posture assessment — scorecard with grade, coverage status, and top recommendations Read, Glob, Grep, Bash sonnet

/security posture

Quick security scorecard — grade, coverage, top recommendations. Deterministic scanner, <2 sec.

Step 1: Run Scanner

Run the deterministic posture scanner:

node <this plugin's scanners/posture-scanner.mjs> [target-path or cwd]

Parse the JSON output. The result contains:

  • scoring.grade (A-F), scoring.pass_rate, scoring.pass/partial/fail/na
  • risk.score (0-100), risk.band, risk.verdict
  • categories[] with id, name, status, findings_count, evidence
  • findings[] with severity, title, description, owasp, recommendation
  • counts with critical/high/medium/low/info

Step 2: Format Scorecard

Present the results as a scorecard:

# Security Posture — [project name]

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| **Grade** | [A-F] |
| **Risk Score** | [N]/100 ([band]) |
| **Verdict** | [verdict] |
| **Duration** | [N]ms |

## Category Scorecard

| # | Category | Status | Findings |
|---|----------|--------|----------|
[one row per category, status as PASS/PARTIAL/FAIL/N-A]

## Top Findings

[List critical and high findings with title, file, and recommendation]

## Quick Wins

[List low-effort fixes from findings]

Step 3: Closing

  • Grade A/B: "Posture solid. Re-run after major changes."
  • Grade C: "Run /security audit for detailed findings."
  • Grade D/F: "Significant exposure. Run /security audit before production use."