external/trailofbits-security/semgrep-rule-creator/skills/semgrep-rule-creator/SKILL.md
Creates custom Semgrep rules for detecting security vulnerabilities, bug patterns, and code patterns. Use when writing Semgrep rules or building custom static analysis detections.
npx skillsauth add seikaikyo/dash-skills semgrep-rule-creatorInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Create production-quality Semgrep rules with proper testing and validation.
Ideal scenarios:
Do NOT use this skill for:
static-analysis skill)When writing Semgrep rules, reject these common shortcuts:
semgrep --test --config <rule-id>.yaml <rule-id>.<ext> to verify. Untested rules have hidden false positives/negatives.Too broad - matches everything, useless for detection:
# BAD: Matches any function call
pattern: $FUNC(...)
# GOOD: Specific dangerous function
pattern: eval(...)
Missing safe cases in tests - leads to undetected false positives:
# BAD: Only tests vulnerable case
# ruleid: my-rule
dangerous(user_input)
# GOOD: Include safe cases to verify no false positives
# ruleid: my-rule
dangerous(user_input)
# ok: my-rule
dangerous(sanitize(user_input))
# ok: my-rule
dangerous("hardcoded_safe_value")
Overly specific patterns - misses variations:
# BAD: Only matches exact format
pattern: os.system("rm " + $VAR)
# GOOD: Matches all os.system calls with taint tracking
mode: taint
pattern-sources:
- pattern: input(...)
pattern-sinks:
- pattern: os.system(...)
This workflow is strict - do not skip steps:
languages: generic)todook and todoruleid test annotations: todoruleid: <rule-id> and todook: <rule-id> annotations in tests files for future rule improvements are forbiddenThis skill guides creation of Semgrep rules that detect security vulnerabilities and code patterns. Rules are created iteratively: analyze the problem, write tests first, analyze AST structure, write the rule, iterate until all tests pass, optimize the rule.
Approach selection:
Why prioritize taint mode? Pattern matching finds syntax but misses context. A pattern eval($X) matches both eval(user_input) (vulnerable) and eval("safe_literal") (safe). Taint mode tracks data flow, so it only alerts when untrusted data actually reaches the sink—dramatically reducing false positives for injection vulnerabilities.
Iterating between approaches: It's okay to experiment. If you start with taint mode and it's not working well (e.g., taint doesn't propagate as expected, too many false positives/negatives), switch to pattern matching. Conversely, if pattern matching produces too many false positives on safe cases, try taint mode instead. The goal is a working rule—not rigid adherence to one approach.
Output structure - exactly 2 files in a directory named after the rule-id:
<rule-id>/
├── <rule-id>.yaml # Semgrep rule
└── <rule-id>.<ext> # Test file with ruleid/ok annotations
rules:
- id: insecure-eval
languages: [python]
severity: HIGH
message: User input passed to eval() allows code execution
mode: taint
pattern-sources:
- pattern: request.args.get(...)
pattern-sinks:
- pattern: eval(...)
Test file (insecure-eval.py):
# ruleid: insecure-eval
eval(request.args.get('code'))
# ok: insecure-eval
eval("print('safe')")
Run tests (from rule directory): semgrep --test --config <rule-id>.yaml <rule-id>.<ext>
Copy this checklist and track progress:
Semgrep Rule Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Analyze the Problem
- [ ] Step 2: Write Tests First
- [ ] Step 3: Analyze AST structure
- [ ] Step 4: Write the rule
- [ ] Step 5: Iterate until all tests pass (semgrep --test)
- [ ] Step 6: Optimize the rule (remove redundancies, re-test)
- [ ] Step 7: Final Run
REQUIRED: Before writing any rule, use WebFetch to read all of these 7 links with Semgrep documentation:
tools
Conduct comprehensive GDPR compliance assessments by evaluating data processing activities against EU Regulation 2016/679, including Article 30 records of processing, lawful basis validation, data subject rights implementation, Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) under Article 35, breach notification procedures, international transfer safeguards (SCCs, adequacy decisions), and technical/organizational measures under Article 32. Use when processing personal data of EU residents, preparing for supervisory authority audits, implementing privacy-by-design for new systems, scoping compliance gaps for M&A due diligence, assessing third-party processors, or responding to data subject access requests at scale. Incorporates 2026 guidance from ICO, EDPB, and post-Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 UK-GDPR considerations. Do not use for implementing specific Article 32 controls — use implementing-gdpr-data-protection-controls; or for DSAR automation — use implementing-gdpr-data-subject-access-request.
tools
Parse Windows forensic artifacts—$MFT/$J (MFTECmd), Prefetch (PECmd), registry hives (RECmd), shellbags, and Amcache—into normalized CSV/JSON with Eric Zimmerman's EZ Tools, then load results into Timeline Explorer for analysis. Use during DFIR/incident-response investigations, after triage collection (e.g. with KAPE), to establish program execution, file/folder access, and persistence evidence from acquired forensic images.
development
Build automated multi-turn adversarial attacks against conversational LLM targets using Microsoft PyRIT's RedTeamingOrchestrator, CrescendoOrchestrator (gradual escalation), and TreeOfAttacksWithPruningOrchestrator (adaptive branching), with scorer feedback loops and persisted conversation memory. Use when single-shot LLM scanning is insufficient and you need multi-turn, scorer-driven AI red-team campaigns against a chatbot or agent.
testing
Stand up MISP, enable and cache curated threat feeds (CIRCL, abuse.ch, Feodo Tracker), apply warninglists to suppress false positives, query indicators with PyMISP, and export attributes as auto-generated Suricata/Sigma/Wazuh detection rules. Use when maturing a MISP instance to actively drive detection, curating threat feeds with quality controls, or automating IOC-to-detection pipelines for the SIEM/IDS.