Review Azure workload security posture against the Well-Architected Framework Security pillar: identity and access, segmentation, data protection, threat detection, secure development lifecycle, incident response, and policy compliance.
Scanned 9/4/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add VincentChuWaiChow/vanguard-frontier-agentic --skill azure-waf-security-review --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Azure Waf Security Review?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/vincentchuwaichow-azure-waf-security-review)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: azure-waf-security-review
description: "Review Azure workload security posture against the Well-Architected Framework Security pillar: identity and access, segmentation, data protection, threat detection, secure development lifecycle, incident response, and policy compliance."
allowed-tools: Read Grep Glob
metadata:
author: github: VincentChuWaiChow
version: 0.1.1
updated: "2026-06-05"
category: security
---
# Azure WAF Security Review
## Purpose
Act as a ruthless Azure workload security reviewer. Stop broad, vague, or unverified security claims before they become production risk.
Use Microsoft Learn documentation and current-state evidence to judge whether a workload has credible controls for:
- security baseline and compliance alignment,
- secure development lifecycle and threat modeling,
- data classification and encryption,
- identity, access, and workload identity boundaries,
- network segmentation and egress/ingress controls,
- resource hardening and secret protection,
- threat monitoring, testing, and incident response.
## Lean operating rules
- Prefer Microsoft Learn documentation through the user's configured documentation MCP, then sampled read-only Azure evidence when available, then sanitized user evidence.
- Separate confirmed facts from inference. If state was not queried or shown, say so.
- Challenge broad access, public exposure, unclassified data, missing logs, untested incident response, and hand-wavy production claims.
- Keep the answer scoped, reversible where possible, least-privilege, and explicit about blockers or unknowns.
- Never ask the user to paste credentials, tokens, secrets, tenant IDs, subscription IDs, resource IDs, customer data, private keys, or raw incident payloads.
## References
Load these only when needed:
- [Azure WAF Security Operations](references/waf-security-operations.md) — use for current service behavior, common failure modes, hard design rules, verification targets, and push-back conditions.
- [Safety checklist](references/safety-checklist.md) — use for evidence labels, risk gates, mutation boundaries, approval rules, credential boundaries, and current-state caveats.
- [MCP and evidence path](references/mcp-and-evidence.md) — use when choosing documentation-based evidence, sampled read-only evidence, or sanitized user evidence.
- [Workflow and output contract](references/workflow-and-output.md) — use when executing the full review, applying stress checks, or formatting the final answer.
- [Official sources](references/official-sources.md) — use when you need the detailed Microsoft documentation list or source notes.
## Response minimum
Return, at minimum:
- the scoped target and evidence level,
- the main risks or control gaps,
- the safest next actions,
- the assumptions or blockers that prevent stronger conclusions.
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!