添加 claude code game studios 到项目
This commit is contained in:
panw
167
CCGS Skill Testing Framework/skills/analysis/security-audit.md
Normal file
167
CCGS Skill Testing Framework/skills/analysis/security-audit.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,167 @@
|
||||
# Skill Test Spec: /security-audit
|
||||
|
||||
## Skill Summary
|
||||
|
||||
`/security-audit` audits the game for security risks including save data
|
||||
integrity, network communication, anti-cheat exposure, and data privacy. It
|
||||
reads source files in `src/` for security patterns and checks whether sensitive
|
||||
data is handled correctly. No director gates are invoked. The skill does not
|
||||
write files (findings report only). Verdicts: SECURE, CONCERNS, or
|
||||
VULNERABILITIES FOUND.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Static Assertions (Structural)
|
||||
|
||||
Verified automatically by `/skill-test static` — no fixture needed.
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Has required frontmatter fields: `name`, `description`, `argument-hint`, `user-invocable`, `allowed-tools`
|
||||
- [ ] Has ≥2 phase headings
|
||||
- [ ] Contains verdict keywords: SECURE, CONCERNS, VULNERABILITIES FOUND
|
||||
- [ ] Does NOT require "May I write" language (read-only; findings report only)
|
||||
- [ ] Has a next-step handoff (what to do with findings)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Director Gate Checks
|
||||
|
||||
None. Security audit is a read-only advisory skill; no gates are invoked.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Test Cases
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 1: Happy Path — Save data encrypted, no hardcoded credentials
|
||||
|
||||
**Fixture:**
|
||||
- `src/core/save_system.gd` uses `Crypto` class to encrypt save data before writing
|
||||
- No hardcoded API keys, passwords, or credentials in any `src/` file
|
||||
- No version numbers or internal build IDs exposed in client-facing output
|
||||
|
||||
**Input:** `/security-audit`
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected behavior:**
|
||||
1. Skill scans `src/` for security patterns: encryption usage, hardcoded credentials, exposed internals
|
||||
2. All checks pass: save data encrypted, no credentials found, no exposed internals
|
||||
3. Findings report shows all checks PASS
|
||||
4. Verdict is SECURE
|
||||
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] Skill checks save data handling for encryption usage
|
||||
- [ ] Skill scans for hardcoded credentials (API keys, passwords, tokens)
|
||||
- [ ] Skill checks for version/build numbers exposed to players
|
||||
- [ ] All checks shown in findings report
|
||||
- [ ] Verdict is SECURE when all checks pass
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 2: Vulnerabilities Found — Unencrypted save data and exposed version
|
||||
|
||||
**Fixture:**
|
||||
- `src/core/save_system.gd` writes save data as plain JSON (no encryption)
|
||||
- `src/ui/debug_overlay.gd` contains: `label.text = "Build: " + ProjectSettings.get("application/config/version")`
|
||||
(exposes internal build version to player)
|
||||
|
||||
**Input:** `/security-audit`
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected behavior:**
|
||||
1. Skill scans `src/` — finds unencrypted save write in `save_system.gd`
|
||||
2. Skill finds exposed version string in `debug_overlay.gd`
|
||||
3. Both findings are flagged as VULNERABILITIES
|
||||
4. Verdict is VULNERABILITIES FOUND
|
||||
5. Skill provides remediation recommendations for each vulnerability
|
||||
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] Unencrypted save data is flagged as a vulnerability with file and approximate line
|
||||
- [ ] Exposed version string is flagged as a vulnerability
|
||||
- [ ] Remediation suggestion is given for each vulnerability
|
||||
- [ ] Verdict is VULNERABILITIES FOUND when any vulnerability is detected
|
||||
- [ ] No files are written or modified
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 3: Online Features Without Authentication — CONCERNS
|
||||
|
||||
**Fixture:**
|
||||
- `src/networking/lobby.gd` exists with functions: `join_lobby()`, `send_chat()`
|
||||
- No authentication check is found before `send_chat()` — players can call it without being verified
|
||||
- Game has online multiplayer features (inferred from file presence)
|
||||
|
||||
**Input:** `/security-audit`
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected behavior:**
|
||||
1. Skill scans `src/networking/` — detects online feature code
|
||||
2. Skill checks for authentication guard before network calls — finds none on `send_chat()`
|
||||
3. Flags: "Online feature without authentication check — CONCERNS"
|
||||
4. Verdict is CONCERNS (not VULNERABILITIES FOUND, as this is a missing control, not an exploit)
|
||||
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] Skill detects online features by scanning for networking source files
|
||||
- [ ] Missing authentication checks before network operations are flagged
|
||||
- [ ] Verdict is CONCERNS (advisory severity) for missing authentication guards
|
||||
- [ ] Output recommends adding authentication before network calls
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 4: Edge Case — No Source Files to Analyze
|
||||
|
||||
**Fixture:**
|
||||
- `src/` directory does not exist or is completely empty
|
||||
|
||||
**Input:** `/security-audit`
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected behavior:**
|
||||
1. Skill attempts to scan `src/` — no files found
|
||||
2. Skill outputs an error: "No source files found in `src/` — nothing to audit"
|
||||
3. No findings report is generated
|
||||
4. No verdict is emitted
|
||||
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] Skill does not crash when `src/` is empty or absent
|
||||
- [ ] Output clearly states that no source files were found
|
||||
- [ ] No verdict is emitted (there is nothing to assess)
|
||||
- [ ] Skill suggests verifying the `src/` directory path
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 5: Gate Compliance — No gate; security-engineer invoked separately
|
||||
|
||||
**Fixture:**
|
||||
- Source files exist; 1 CONCERNS-level finding detected (debug logging enabled in release build)
|
||||
- `review-mode.txt` contains `full`
|
||||
|
||||
**Input:** `/security-audit`
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected behavior:**
|
||||
1. Skill scans source; finds debug logging active in release path
|
||||
2. No director gate is invoked regardless of review mode
|
||||
3. Verdict is CONCERNS
|
||||
4. Output notes: "For formal security review, consider engaging a security-engineer agent"
|
||||
5. Findings are presented as a read-only report; no files written
|
||||
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] No director gate is invoked in any review mode
|
||||
- [ ] Security-engineer consultation is suggested (not mandated)
|
||||
- [ ] No files are written
|
||||
- [ ] Verdict is CONCERNS for advisory-level security findings
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Protocol Compliance
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Reads source files in `src/` before auditing
|
||||
- [ ] Checks save data encryption, hardcoded credentials, exposed internals, auth guards
|
||||
- [ ] Provides remediation recommendations for each finding
|
||||
- [ ] Does not write any files (read-only skill)
|
||||
- [ ] No director gates are invoked
|
||||
- [ ] Verdict is one of: SECURE, CONCERNS, VULNERABILITIES FOUND
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Coverage Notes
|
||||
|
||||
- Anti-cheat analysis (client-side value validation, server authority) is not
|
||||
explicitly tested here; it follows the CONCERNS or VULNERABILITIES pattern
|
||||
depending on severity.
|
||||
- Data privacy compliance (GDPR, COPPA) is out of scope for this spec; those
|
||||
require legal review beyond code scanning.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user