Skip to content

docs: add OWASP Agentic Skills Top 10 (AST10) coverage matrix and gap analysis #221

Description

@grootynix

Feature Request: Map SkillSpector Detection Patterns to OWASP Agentic Skills Top 10 (AST10)

Summary
SkillSpector's 64 detection patterns across 16 categories provide strong coverage of the attack surface described in the OWASP Agentic Skills Top 10 (AST10). However, there is currently no explicit mapping between SkillSpector rule IDs and AST10 risks. Adding this mapping would:

  • Help security teams justify SkillSpector adoption against a recognized framework
  • Make scan reports more actionable ("this finding maps to AST04: Insecure Skill Composition")
  • Identify any AST10 risks with gaps in current coverage
  • Align with how AppSec teams already reason about OWASP frameworks

Proposed Deliverables

  1. Coverage matrix — a table mapping each AST10 risk (AST01–AST10) to the SkillSpector rule IDs that address it, with a coverage assessment (full / partial / gap)
  2. Rule metadata — add an optional owasp_ast10 field to each pattern definition so it surfaces in JSON/SARIF output
  3. Gap analysis — document any AST10 risks not currently covered and propose new patterns or LLM prompts to close them
  4. Docs page — add a docs/owasp-mapping.md that can be referenced in reports and READMEs

Reference

Initial Draft Mapping (for discussion)

AST10 Risk SkillSpector Rules (candidate) Coverage
AST01 – Malicious Skill Distribution SC3, SC4, SC6, YR1, YR2 Partial
AST02 – Unsafe Execution Context AST1–AST8, TT5 Strong
AST03 – Excessive Permissions PE1–PE3, LP1–LP4, EA1 Strong
AST04 – Insecure Skill Composition SC1, SC2, SC5, TM2 Partial
AST05 – Prompt Injection via Skills P1–P5, MP1–MP3, TP1–TP4 Strong
AST06 – Data Exfiltration E1–E4, TT3, TT4 Strong
AST07 – Insufficient Sandboxing AST4, AST5, EA2, EA4 Partial
AST08 – Skill Identity Spoofing TR2, TP2 Weak
AST09 – Lack of Audit & Governance OH1–OH3, P6–P8 Partial
AST10 – Missing Skill Metadata Standard LP3, LP4 Weak

The table above is a starting point. I may have the AST IDs slightly off and some rules could map to multiple risks. Happy to collaborate on a more precise version.

Willingness to Contribute
I'm happy to draft the docs/owasp-mapping.md if the maintainers can confirm the intended AST10 risk numbering and whether rule metadata extension is in scope.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type
    No fields configured for issues without a type.

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions