Review authorization, tenant isolation, and privileged route boundaries.
Scanned 9/2/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add Eliyce/paqad-ai --skill permission-boundary-review --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Permission Boundary Review?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/eliyce-permission-boundary-review)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: permission-boundary-review
description: Review authorization, tenant isolation, and privileged route boundaries.
model_tier: reasoning
triggers:
- workflow:
- pentest
cacheable: false
cache_key_inputs:
- docs/modules/**/business.md
- docs/modules/**/technical.md
- tests/**
output_format: markdown
input_schema:
module_doc_paths:
type: path[]
required: true
description: Module docs describing roles, permissions, or tenant-sensitive actions.
test_paths:
type: path[]
required: false
description: Tests that may prove authorization and boundary behavior.
---
## What It Does
Reviews permission, authorization, and tenant-boundary expectations so pentest findings can focus on real access-control gaps instead of generic auth reminders.
## Use This When
Use this when module docs or route inventories describe privileged actions, admin surfaces, policy checks, or tenant-specific data handling.
## Inputs
- Read the module docs that describe privileged flows first.
- Read `references/boundary-checklist.md` before deciding whether evidence is sufficient.
- Read tests and route evidence that show how the project enforces those boundaries.
## Procedure
1. Run `scripts/scan-authz-smells.sh` to surface candidate IDOR / hidden-admin / impersonation / broad-export / cross-tenant patterns.
2. For each hit, walk the relevant module docs to determine whether code, tests, or runtime evidence proves the boundary.
3. Bucket each finding into an area from `assets/area-rubric.txt` (idor, privilege-escalation, tenant-isolation, hidden-admin, impersonation, broad-export).
4. Treat doc-vs-implementation disagreement as a security finding, never a benign inconsistency.
5. Format per `assets/output.template.md`; validate with `scripts/lint-findings.sh`.
## Output Contract
- Match `assets/output.template.md`: severity, WSTG-AUTHZ id, area from `assets/area-rubric.txt`, Evidence, Missing proof, Required action.
- Output must pass `scripts/lint-findings.sh` (exit 0).
## Escalate / Stop Conditions
- Ask when the privilege model is unclear or not described anywhere in the project.
- Warn when runtime evidence suggests a privileged path is exposed without clear protection.
- Do not mark a boundary as safe purely because authentication exists.
## Resources
- `references/boundary-checklist.md`
- `scripts/scan-authz-smells.sh`
- `scripts/lint-findings.sh`
- `assets/output.template.md`
- `assets/area-rubric.txt`
- `agents/openai.yaml`
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!