Our review
Verifies that security controls documented in the threat model actually exist in the codebase by searching for implementations, validating configurations, and identifying gaps.
Strengths
- Systematic search across multiple control categories (auth, crypto, validation, etc.)
- Optional thorough analysis with evidence collection (file paths, line numbers)
- Clear implementation status assessment (implemented, partial, planned, missing)
- Generates a visual report with severity breakdown
Limitations
- Requires a pre-existing threat model (threats.json file)
- Relies on code pattern matching, may miss non-standard custom implementations
- Does not replace a penetration test or dynamic analysis
Use this skill after threat modeling to validate that the intended security controls are actually present in the code.
Do not use it if no threat model has been created, or if you need real-time security testing (dynamic analysis).
Security analysis
SafeThe skill uses only file search and read/write operations (Read, Write, Glob, Grep) to verify security controls; it does not execute system commands, make network requests, or perform destructive actions. It does not introduce any new risk beyond the agent's existing capabilities.
No concerns found
Examples
/tm-verify/tm-verify --control AUTH-001/tm-verify --category auth --thorough --evidencename: tm-verify description: Verify that security controls documented in the threat model actually exist in the codebase. Searches for control implementations, validates configurations, identifies gaps. Use when validating threat model against code, checking security control implementation, or finding security gaps. allowed-tools: Read, Write, Glob, Grep
Control Verification
Purpose
Verify that security controls exist in your codebase by:
- Searching for control implementations
- Validating security configurations
- Checking for security middleware/decorators
- Identifying implementation gaps
- Collecting evidence for each control
Usage
/tm-verify [--control <id>] [--category <name>] [--thorough] [--evidence]
Arguments:
--control: Verify specific control by ID--category: Verify controls in category (auth, crypto, access-control, etc.)--thorough: Deep code analysis--evidence: Collect code evidence for documentation
Prerequisites
Requires threat analysis. Run /tm-threats first if threats.json doesn't exist.
Control Categories
Authentication Controls
Search patterns:
- passport, authenticate, login, signin
- bcrypt, argon2, scrypt, pbkdf2
- jwt, jsonwebtoken, jose
- session, cookie
- oauth, oidc, saml
- mfa, totp, 2fa, two-factor
Authorization Controls
Search patterns:
- authorize, isAuthorized, checkPermission
- hasRole, requireRole, role
- rbac, abac, acl
- permission, policy
- canAccess, isAllowed
Input Validation Controls
Search patterns:
- validate, validator, sanitize
- joi, yup, zod, ajv
- escape, encode
- xss, html-entities
Cryptography Controls
Search patterns:
- crypto, cipher, encrypt, decrypt
- hash, hmac, sign, verify
- tls, ssl, https
- certificate, key, secret
Rate Limiting Controls
Search patterns:
- rate-limit, rateLimit, throttle
- express-rate-limit
- slowDown
- quota, limit
Logging/Audit Controls
Search patterns:
- audit, log, logger
- winston, bunyan, pino
- monitor, track
- event, activity
Error Handling Controls
Search patterns:
- error, exception, catch
- errorHandler, onError
- try, catch, finally
Verification Process
For Each Required Control
-
Search for implementation patterns
- Use Grep with control-specific patterns
- Search in configured code paths
- Exclude test files and node_modules
-
Analyze findings
- Verify pattern matches are actual implementations
- Check configuration completeness
- Validate security of implementation
-
Assess implementation status
implemented: Control fully present and configuredpartial: Control exists but incompleteplanned: Control referenced but not implementedmissing: No evidence of control
-
Collect evidence
- File paths and line numbers
- Configuration values
- Related test files
Output Files
verification-report.md (Visual Report)
# Control Verification Report
**Generated**: [Date]
**Code Paths Analyzed**: [Paths]
## Summary
VERIFICATION RESULTS ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Controls Analyzed: 29
STATUS BREAKDOWN ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ✓ Implemented │████████████████████████████████████░░░░│ 18 (62%) ⚠ Partial │██████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░│ 7 (24%) ✗ Missing │████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░│ 4 (14%)
GAPS BY SEVERITY ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────── CRITICAL │████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░│ 2 HIGH │████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░│ 4 MEDIUM │██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░│ 3 LOW │████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░│ 2
## Verified Controls
| Control | Status | Evidence |
|---------|--------|----------|
| Rate Limiting | ✓ Implemented | `src/middleware/rateLimiter.ts:15` |
| JWT Auth | ✓ Implemented | `src/middleware/auth.ts:23` |
| Input Validation | ⚠ Partial | `src/validators/` (missing on 3 routes) |
| MFA | ✗ Missing | No implementation found |
## Gap Details
### GAP-001: MFA Not Enforced (HIGH)
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ EXPECTED: MFA required for all admin accounts │ │ ACTUAL: MFA optional, no enforcement check found │ │ │ │ EVIDENCE: │ │ Searched: mfa, totp, 2fa, two-factor │ │ Found: No matches in auth middleware │ │ │ │ REMEDIATION: │ │ Add MFA verification in admin route middleware │ │ Effort: Medium | Priority: High │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
[Additional gaps...]
controls.json
{
"version": "1.0",
"generated": "ISO-8601",
"controls": [
{
"id": "control-001",
"name": "Rate Limiting on Auth Endpoints",
"type": "preventive",
"category": "authentication",
"description": "Limit login attempts to prevent brute force",
"threats_mitigated": ["threat-001", "threat-002"],
"implementation": {
"status": "implemented",
"method": "express-rate-limit middleware",
"configuration": {
"windowMs": 60000,
"max": 5
}
},
"verification": {
"status": "verified",
"evidence": [
{
"type": "code",
"location": "src/middleware/rateLimiter.ts:15-45",
"verified_at": "2025-01-20T10:00:00Z"
}
]
},
"effectiveness": 0.7
}
]
}
gaps.json
{
"version": "1.0",
"generated": "ISO-8601",
"gaps": [
{
"id": "gap-001",
"control_id": "control-002",
"title": "MFA Not Enforced for Admin Users",
"description": "Multi-factor authentication available but not mandatory",
"expected": "MFA required for all privileged accounts",
"actual": "MFA optional, enforcement check missing",
"severity": "high",
"evidence": {
"code_search": "No MFA enforcement in auth middleware",
"config_check": "MFA_REQUIRED env var not set"
},
"remediation": {
"recommendation": "Add MFA enforcement check in admin routes",
"effort": "medium",
"priority": "high"
},
"related_threats": ["threat-001", "threat-003"]
}
]
}
Common Gap Patterns
Authentication Gaps
- Password policy not enforced
- Session timeout not configured
- MFA not enforced
- Account lockout missing
Authorization Gaps
- Object-level authorization missing
- Function-level access control gaps
- IDOR vulnerabilities
Input Validation Gaps
- Unvalidated user input
- Missing output encoding
- File upload without validation
Cryptography Gaps
- Weak algorithms in use
- Hardcoded secrets
- Missing encryption at rest
Logging Gaps
- Security events not logged
- Sensitive data in logs
- Missing log integrity
Instructions for Claude
When executing this skill:
-
Load threat model state:
- Read
.threatmodel/state/threats.json - Read
.threatmodel/config.yamlfor code paths
- Read
-
Determine required controls:
- For each threat, identify needed countermeasures
- Group by control category
-
Search codebase for each control:
- Use Grep with appropriate patterns
- Search in configured code paths
- Exclude test/vendor directories
-
Analyze search results:
- Verify matches are actual implementations
- Check for proper configuration
- Look for related tests
-
Assess implementation status:
- Mark as implemented, partial, or missing
- Document evidence with file:line references
-
Identify gaps:
- For missing/partial controls
- Document expected vs actual
- Assess severity
- Recommend remediation
-
Write visual report file (
.threatmodel/reports/verification-report.md):- Include ASCII progress bars for status breakdown
- Include visual gap boxes with evidence
- Use
✓,⚠,✗symbols - This file should contain ALL the visual elements, not just JSON
-
Console summary (also display to user):
Control Verification Complete ============================= Controls Analyzed: X Verification Results: ✓ Implemented: N ⚠ Partial: N ✗ Missing: N Gaps Identified: Critical: N High: N Medium: N Low: N Top Gaps: [GAP-001] HIGH: MFA not enforced Expected: Mandatory for admins Found: Optional in src/auth/mfa.ts [GAP-002] HIGH: SQL queries not parameterized Expected: Parameterized queries Found: Concatenation in src/legacy/reports.ts:120 Files Updated: .threatmodel/state/controls.json .threatmodel/state/gaps.json Next Steps: Run /tm-compliance to map to frameworks Run /tm-report to generate risk report
Reference Files
Security Audit Scanner
Security
Analyzes code to detect OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities.
OWASP Security Checklist
Security
Generates application security checklists based on the OWASP Top 10.
Threat Model Generator
Security
Generates threat model documents with STRIDE analysis.