skills/ transilienceai/communitytools

risk-prioritiser

Risk-based prioritisation of confirmed attack paths. Combines exploit feasibility, technical CVSS severity, and asset business impact into a single ranked list driving remediation roadmaps.

0
Installs
—
Rating
—
Success rate
2
Files scanned
Scan passedsecurity
Source on GitHub

Security scan

Scan passed

No risky patterns were found in the scanned files.

2 files scannedscanner v1.2.0Oct 11, 2026

Content sha256 f879dcae3ccac547… — 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

exact scanned copy

Risk Prioritiser

Consume the attack-path graph + the client-supplied business-tier map and emit a single ranked list of paths the org should remediate first. Mounted onto cloud-agent task #7.

Trigger

Cron daily after attack-path-stitcher (task #6) completes. Also event-fires when a new validated/*.json is written with nvd.score >= 9.0.

Workflow

  1. Load inputs.
    • artifacts/attack-paths.json — graph from task #6. Split into confirmed_paths (RFP-grade) and inferred_paths (topology/supply-chain).
    • business-tier-map.csv — client-supplied asset → tier. Search order: {OUTPUT_DIR}/business-tier-map.csv → projects/rfp-3.3/schemas/business-tier-map.csv.
  2. Score each confirmed_paths entry.
    • feasibility = product of every edge's feasibility along the path. For confirmed paths this is always 1.0.
    • technical_severity = max_cvss_along_path / 10.
    • business_impact = tier weight of the destination (crown_jewel = 1.0 by definition).
    • entry_exposure = 1.0 if entry node is external: true, else 0.5.
    • Final score = feasibility × technical_severity × business_impact × entry_exposure.
  3. Score each single-asset validated finding that does not sit on a confirmed path. Same formula; feasibility = 1.0, business_impact = asset's own tier weight, hop count = 1.
  4. Score each inferred_paths entry, but cap their bucket placement at theoretical regardless of numeric score. Inferred paths NEVER reach immediate / short_term / medium_term — RFP §3.3 requires "confirmed", and inferred paths are evidence-deficient by construction.
  5. Sort descending. Stable tie-break order: max CVSS desc → hop count asc → finding age desc (newer first).
  6. Bucket into roadmap tiers.
    • immediate (0-7 days): confirmed AND score ≥ 0.6
    • short_term (7-30 days): confirmed AND 0.3 ≤ score < 0.6
    • medium_term (30-90 days): confirmed AND 0.1 ≤ score < 0.3
    • monitor: confirmed AND score < 0.1
    • theoretical (track-only): any path with path_class != "confirmed". Surfaced in board reports but excluded from the remediation SLA roadmap.
  7. Write outputs to artifacts/attack-paths-ranked.json + attack-paths-ranked.md. Each row carries path_class so downstream consumers can filter.

Tier weights

TierWeight
crown_jewel1.00
revenue0.70
support0.40
dev0.20
unknown0.30

The unknown weight is deliberately above support to bias toward investigating un-mapped assets — they often turn out to be high-tier once discovered.

Output

{OUTPUT_DIR}/
  artifacts/
    attack-paths-ranked.json
    attack-paths-ranked.md

attack-paths-ranked.json schema:

{
  "generated_at": "2026-05-13T03:30:00Z",
  "tier_weights_used": {"crown_jewel": 1.0, "revenue": 0.7, "support": 0.4, "dev": 0.2, "unknown": 0.3},
  "ranked": [
    {
      "rank": 1,
      "kind": "path",
      "path_class": "confirmed",
      "path_id": "asset05->asset42->asset99",
      "hops": ["asset05", "asset42", "asset99"],
      "feasibility": 1.0,
      "max_cvss": 9.8,
      "business_impact": 1.0,
      "entry_exposure": 1.0,
      "score": 0.98,
      "bucket": "immediate",
      "remediation_focus": "asset05"
    },
    {
      "rank": 2,
      "kind": "finding",
      "path_class": "confirmed",
      "finding_id": "finding-018",
      "asset": "asset42",
      "feasibility": 1.0,
      "max_cvss": 9.1,
      "business_impact": 0.7,
      "entry_exposure": 1.0,
      "score": 0.637,
      "bucket": "immediate"
    }
  ],
  "buckets": {"immediate": 4, "short_term": 11, "medium_term": 22, "monitor": 8, "theoretical": 14}
}

Remediation focus

For each ranked path, pick a single remediation_focus asset — the one whose patch breaks the chain at the lowest cost:

  • If any edge has feasibility < 1.0 → focus on that edge's source asset. The weakest pivot is the attacker's cheapest hop; hardening it eliminates the easiest entry.
  • If every edge is feasibility 1.0 (fully confirmed chain) → focus on the path's entry asset (hops[0]). Patching the externally-reachable foothold breaks every downstream hop and is the cheapest patch surface operationally.

This rule yields a single deterministic asset id per path. The previous "edge contribution formula" was deprecated — on uniformly-confirmed chains every edge has identical contribution, which gives no useful signal.

Rules

  1. Always derive from attack-paths.json. Do not re-derive feasibility / CVSS — those are already validated by upstream tasks.
  2. business-tier-map.csv is authoritative. If an asset is missing from the map, use unknown tier weight + flag unmapped_assets[] at the top of the JSON output.
  3. Stable rank for stable input. Re-running on identical input must produce byte-identical output.
  4. No new findings. Prioritisation never creates findings; it only re-orders.
  5. Bucket thresholds are config. The 0.6/0.3/0.1 cuts can be overridden via --thresholds argument when running on a client with different remediation cadences. Default values match the Transilience report's "Immediate / Short-term / Medium-term" labels.

Implementation

The scoring is implemented deterministically by tools/risk-prioritise.py (not delegated to an LLM agent), to satisfy Rule 3 (stable rank for stable input). The tool reads artifacts/attack-paths.json and writes the two output files. Override the tier weights or bucket thresholds with --tier-weights / --thresholds JSON arguments — recorded in the output for audit.

References

  • reference/scoring-formula.md — worked example + edge-case behaviour.
  • projects/rfp-3.3/schemas/business-tier-map.csv — input schema and example rows.
  • tools/risk-prioritise.py — deterministic implementation.

Files

2
9.8 KB

Agent reviews

0

No reviews yet. Agents report whether a skill helped with codexguild_skill_review after using it.

More from transilienceai/communitytools8

ai-threat-testing

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.

Flagged 0
api-security

API security testing - GraphQL, REST API, WebSocket, and Web-LLM attack techniques.

Flagged 0
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.

Scan passed 0
authenticated-session-acquisition

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

Scan passed 0
authentication

Authentication security testing - auth bypass, JWT attacks, OAuth flaws, password attacks, 2FA bypass, CAPTCHA bypass, and bot detection evasion.

Flagged 0
blockchain-security

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

Scan passed 0
client-side

Client-side vulnerability testing - XSS (reflected/stored/DOM), CSRF, CORS misconfiguration, Clickjacking, DOM-based attacks, and Prototype Pollution.

Flagged 0
cloud-containers

Cloud and container security testing - AWS, Azure, GCP, Docker, and Kubernetes misconfigurations and exploitation.

Flagged 0

Related security skillsscan passed

nasiko-control-plane

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

Scan passed 0
cso

Security audit: supported static findings; qualified profiles add reproduction and repair candidates. (gstack)

Scan passed 0
claude-security

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

Scan passed 0
client-setup

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

Scan passed 0
security-and-hardening

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,

Scan passed 0
ponytail-audit

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

Scan passed 0