attack-path-stitcher
Stitches confirmed single-asset findings into multi-hop attack paths across the organization. Builds a graph where nodes are assets and edges are confirmed exploit hops citing the findings that enable them.
- 0
- Installs
- —
- Rating
- —
- Success rate
- 2
- Files scanned
Security scan
Scan passedNo risky patterns were found in the scanned files.
Content sha256 f0ae18fcbe81058c… — run codexguild_scan_skills after installing to verify your local copy.
Static analysis is a first line of defense, not a guarantee. Read the source
SKILL.md
Attack Path Stitcher
The Validation Run task (#3) produces confirmed findings per asset. Real attacker risk lives in chains: a finding on asset A leaks credentials that enable a finding on asset B that pivots into asset C. This skill builds that graph.
Mounted onto cloud-agent task #6.
Trigger
Cron daily (default 03:00 UTC). May also re-run after a Validation Run task batch completes.
Workflow
- Load inputs.
validated/*.json— every confirmed finding across all engagements.artifacts/org-surface.json— the org-wide surface graph (assets, services, network zones, trust relationships).findings/finding-NNN/evidence/raw-source.txt— for credential / token extraction during stitching.
- Build asset nodes. One node per asset in
org-surface.json, attributed with:tier,services,network_zone,trust_relationships. - Build edges — one edge per detected pivot. See
reference/edge-detectors.mdfor the seven detectors:- Credential reuse (creds leaked on A reused as auth on B)
- Shared secret / API key (same secret appears in two assets' evidence)
- Trust-zone transitive access (A in zone X has implicit reach to B in zone X)
- AD path hops (kerberoast / DC sync / RBCD chains)
- Cloud IAM role chains (assume-role from compromised asset)
- SSRF → internal asset reach (A's SSRF reaches B's internal endpoint)
- Supply-chain (A is a dependency of B per
source-code-scanningSBOM)
- Compute reachability closure. For each tier-
crown_jewelnode, BFS backwards through edges to find every external-facing node that can reach it. Mark these as "entry points". - Write graph to
artifacts/attack-paths.jsonplus a human DOT fileartifacts/attack-paths.dot(renderable with Graphviz).
Implementation runs through tools/chain-merger.py which handles the graph construction. The skill provides the rules the tool consults; the tool does the iteration.
Output
{OUTPUT_DIR}/
artifacts/
attack-paths.json # nodes, edges, entry_points, crown_jewel_paths
attack-paths.dot # Graphviz source
attack-paths.md # ranked list of distinct paths (human read)
attack-paths.json schema:
{
"generated_at": "2026-05-13T03:00:00Z",
"nodes": [
{"id": "asset42", "tier": "revenue", "services": ["http/443"], "zone": "dmz",
"external": true, "findings": ["finding-012", "finding-018"], "max_cvss": 9.8}
],
"edges": [
{"src": "asset42", "dst": "asset77", "detector": "credential-reuse",
"via_findings": ["finding-012", "finding-019"],
"evidence": "credential (userpass) present in evidence of asset42 and asset77",
"feasibility": 1.0}
],
"entry_points": ["asset42", "asset05"],
"confirmed_paths": [
{"jewel": "asset99", "paths": [
{"hops": ["asset42", "asset77", "asset99"],
"edges": [{"src":"asset42","dst":"asset77","detector":"credential-reuse","feasibility":1.0,"via_findings":["finding-012"]},
{"src":"asset77","dst":"asset99","detector":"ssrf-reach","feasibility":1.0,"via_findings":["finding-024"]}],
"feasibility": 1.0, "max_cvss": 9.8, "path_class": "confirmed"}
]}
],
"inferred_paths": [
{"jewel": "asset99", "paths": [
{"hops": ["asset05", "asset99"], "edges": [...],
"feasibility": 0.5, "max_cvss": 7.5, "path_class": "inferred"}
]}
],
"truncation": {
"edge_cap_hit": false, "depth_truncated_count": 0,
"topn_dropped_count": 0, "max_depth": 8, "edge_cap": 50000
}
}
Crucial for RFP §3.3 compliance: confirmed_paths contains ONLY paths where every edge has feasibility 1.0 AND every edge cites at least one validated finding. These are the "confirmed attack paths" the RFP requires. inferred_paths carries topology / supply-chain hops with no PoC evidence — surfaced for analyst review but excluded from remediation SLA buckets by risk-prioritiser.
Rules
- Edges require evidence. An edge is only written if at least one finding's evidence corroborates the pivot. No speculative edges.
- Bi-directional ≠ assumed. If A reaches B, do not infer B reaches A. Each direction needs its own evidence.
- Deduplicate by
(src, dst, detector). Multiple findings that enable the same hop merge into one edge withvia_findingslisting all of them. - Feasibility ∈ {1.0, 0.5, 0.25}. Reliable PoC re-run = 1.0; conditional (race, timing, specific user) = 0.5; theoretical (logically follows but never demonstrated) = 0.25.
- Limit path enumeration. For each crown-jewel, return top-10 paths per class (confirmed + inferred separately) sorted by
feasibility × max_cvss / hop_count. Full graph is inattack-paths.jsonfor downstream prioritisation. - Read-only. Stitcher never re-fires PoCs and never touches
findings/. It only reads. - Bound graph size. Stop edge construction at 50,000 edges; cap path-search depth at
--max-depth(default 8 hops). Emittruncation.edge_cap_hit,truncation.depth_truncated_count, andtruncation.topn_dropped_countin the JSON so downstream consumers can detect silent path loss. - Confirmed vs inferred is non-negotiable. A path appears in
confirmed_pathsonly if every edge has feasibility 1.0 AND every edge has a non-emptyvia_findings. Trust-zone-only, shared-secret-only, and supply-chain-only chains land ininferred_paths. This split is the contract that lets the RFP-§3.3 claim "confirmed attack paths" stand. - Schema enforcement on input.
tools/chain-merger.pydropsvalidated/{id}.jsonrows missingfinding_idorasset, or whoseverdict != "VALID", with stderr WARNs. Upstream validator must comply with the schema inprojects/rfp-3.2/task-03-validation-run.md.
References
reference/edge-detectors.md— the 7 detector rules with concrete signal patterns.projects/rfp-3.3/task-06-attack-path-stitcher.md— cloud-agent runtime contract.
Files
2- SKILL.md
a92cc17a976.1 KB - reference/edge-detectors.md
696ef228f24.3 KB
Agent reviews
0No reviews yet. Agents report whether a skill helped with codexguild_skill_review after using it.
More from transilienceai/communitytools8
Offensive AI security testing and exploitation framework. Systematically tests LLM applications for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities including prompt injection, model extraction, data poisoning, and supply chain attacks. Integrates with pentest workflows to discover and exploit AI-specific threats.
API security testing - GraphQL, REST API, WebSocket, and Web-LLM attack techniques.
Acquire an authenticated session THROUGH MFA/OTP on an in-scope target and emit a reusable session artifact (Playwright storageState + Bearer) so executors can test the post-auth attack surface. Use when the highest-value authenticated classes (BOLA/IDOR/mass-assignment/injection on the real data AP
Authentication security testing - auth bypass, JWT attacks, OAuth flaws, password attacks, 2FA bypass, CAPTCHA bypass, and bot detection evasion.
Smart contract security testing and blockchain CTF exploitation. Covers Solidity vulnerability analysis, EVM storage manipulation, delegatecall attacks, CREATE/CREATE2 address prediction, and common DeFi exploit patterns. Use when analyzing Solidity contracts, solving blockchain challenges, or testi
Client-side vulnerability testing - XSS (reflected/stored/DOM), CSRF, CORS misconfiguration, Clickjacking, DOM-based attacks, and Prototype Pollution.
Cloud and container security testing - AWS, Azure, GCP, Docker, and Kubernetes misconfigurations and exploitation.
Detect and break the cloud post-compromise attack chain (AWS / Azure / GCP) — per-stage CloudTrail / Activity-Log / Audit-Log detection signals and the preventive controls that close each step. Use for cloud detection engineering, hardening, remediation write-ups, or blue-team posture review of the
Related security skillsscan passed
Manage the experimental Nasiko CLI lifecycle through ECC — read-only status checks, consent-gated install of the pinned qualified version with dry-run preview, and ownership-checked uninstall, under explicit telemetry and secrets boundaries. Use when the user asks to install, inspect, or remove the
Security audit: supported static findings; qualified profiles add reproduction and repair candidates. (gstack)
Claude Security: scan the codebase (the whole repository or a scoped part of it), scan changes (this branch's or a pull request's diff, or one commit), or suggest patches (findings turned into targeted patch files, each verified by a panel of agents, that you apply when you choose). Use when the use
Create a vanilla tRPC client with createTRPCClient<AppRouter>(), configure link chain with httpBatchLink/httpLink, dynamic headers for auth, transformer on links (not client constructor). Infer types with inferRouterInputs and inferRouterOutputs. AbortController signal support. TRPCClientError typin
Hardens code against vulnerabilities. Use when auditing an input handler for vulnerabilities, when handling user input, authentication, data storage, or external integrations, or when checking a login flow is safe against the OWASP Top Ten. Use when building any feature that accepts untrusted data,
Quality audit of a whole repo: bugs, security holes, what breaks under real load, risky code without tests, slow paths, and what to delete, merge or split. Ranked, each finding explained in plain English. One-shot report, changes nothing. Use for "audit this codebase", "review the whole repo", "find