Detects unsafe rendering or execution of LLM output that enables XSS, command
Scanned 9/9/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add thejefflarson/soundcheck --skill insecure-output-handling --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Insecure Output Handling?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/thejefflarson-insecure-output-handling)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: insecure-output-handling
description: Detects unsafe rendering or execution of LLM output that enables XSS, command
injection, or second-order injection. Use when writing code that renders LLM
output to a UI, executes LLM-generated code or shell commands, or passes LLM
responses to downstream APIs or databases. Also invoke when displaying
markdown or HTML from an LLM response.
---
# Insecure Output Handling Security Check (OWASP LLM02:2025)
## What this checks
Protects against XSS, command injection, and second-order injection that arise when
LLM output is treated as trusted. The model may produce malicious content through
prompt injection or hallucination; downstream systems must sanitize it the same way
they would sanitize raw user input.
## Vulnerable patterns
- LLM response assigned to a raw-HTML sink (`innerHTML`, `dangerouslySetInnerHTML`, `v-html`, server-side `mark_safe`) without sanitization
- LLM-generated code or shell string passed to `eval`, `exec`, or a subprocess call with shell expansion enabled
- LLM output interpolated into a SQL or NoSQL query string instead of bound as a parameter
- LLM-produced markdown rendered to HTML without an allowlist-based sanitizer
- LLM response forwarded to a downstream API or webhook without re-validating against the destination's schema
## Fix immediately
Flag the vulnerable code and explain the risk. Translate the principles below to the
audited file's language, UI framework, and database driver — use that stack's
documented escaping, sanitizer, and parameter-binding APIs.
For each finding, establish these properties:
1. **Treat LLM output as untrusted input at every consumption point.** The same
escaping, parameterization, and allowlisting rules that apply to user input
apply here — prompt injection makes the model a proxy for attacker content.
2. **HTML rendering uses a safe sink.** Plain-text sink or auto-escaping template
for prose; an allowlist-based sanitizer for rich content. Never a raw-HTML
sink with an unsanitized LLM string.
3. **Shell and code execution require an allowlist.** If the LLM picks an
action, the handler validates it against a static set of permitted commands
and invokes them with argv arrays — never with shell expansion enabled, never
through a dynamic-evaluation primitive.
4. **Database queries are parameterized.** LLM output lands in bind variables,
not string-interpolated into the statement. For injection details, see the
`injection` skill.
## Verification
Confirm the response:
- [ ] No LLM string is assigned to a raw-HTML sink without going through an allowlist-based sanitizer
- [ ] Shell execution uses an allowlist; shell-expansion modes are never used with LLM-derived input
- [ ] If the code routes LLM output into a database query, the query uses parameterized placeholders — not string interpolation or concatenation with the LLM-derived value. Skip this criterion when the code does not execute any database query.
- [ ] LLM output is treated as untrusted user input at every consumption point
## References
- CWE-79 ([Cross-site Scripting](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/79.html))
- CWE-116 ([Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/116.html))
- [OWASP LLM02:2025 Insecure Output Handling](https://genai.owasp.org/llmrisk/llm02-insecure-output-handling/)
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!