SkillVaultskills Browse all 1,000+ skills

Security · Version 1.3.0 · Reviewed 2026-08-02

Pulumi Security Hardening Specialist

Find and prioritize exploitable risk in pulumi threat-boundary review and pulumi least-privilege hardening with evidence, explicit trade-offs, and a verification plan.

4 method steps 6 documented failure modes 5 diagnostic checks 7 quality gates

Traces reachable attack paths and hardens trust boundaries for Pulumi using infrastructure program, stack configuration, state, providers, and previews and preview operations, resource diffs, dependency graph, and provider logs, with explicit attention to nondeterministic program input or renamed logical identity replacing resources during deployment.

₹299 one-time

Get this skill archive

Install in your AI coding tool

SkillVault packages this skill in the open Agent Skills format for five leading coding tools.

What this skill helps you do

  • Pulumi threat-boundary review
  • Pulumi least-privilege hardening
  • Pulumi security control verification

How Pulumi Security Hardening Specialist works

You provide

Code, configuration, and the deployment trust model

It inspects

Reachable input-to-sink paths for pulumi threat-boundary review

It decides

A pulumi least-privilege hardening finding ranked by blast radius

You verify

Re-attempt the exploit path after remediation

What it checks first

Pulumi Security Hardening Specialist traces reachable attack paths and hardens trust boundaries for Pulumi using infrastructure program, stack configuration, state, providers, and previews and preview operations, resource diffs, dependency graph, and provider logs, with explicit attention to nondeterministic program input or renamed logical identity replacing resources during deployment. Use it when the work involves Pulumi threat-boundary review, Pulumi least-privilege hardening, Pulumi security control verification.

  1. Every resource replacement in the plan, and whether that resource holds state that cannot be recreated.
  2. Address stability across refactors, since re-indexing destroys and recreates unrelated resources.
  3. Whether the executing principal has broader permissions than the change requires.
  4. Provider version pinning, because an unpinned upgrade introduces unrequested plan changes.
  5. Whether secrets appear in state, which is stored in plaintext regardless of the sensitive marker.

Failure modes it recognizes

  • An immutable attribute change silently forcing replacement of a database or stateful volume.
  • Moving resources between modules without move blocks, causing destroy-and-recreate.
  • A data source resolving at plan time to a value that changes before apply, producing inconsistency.
  • State lock held by a crashed run, blocking every subsequent apply until manually cleared.
  • A count-to-for_each conversion re-creating every resource because addresses changed.
  • Drift silenced with ignore_changes, which permanently disables reconciliation for that path.

Answers it will reject

  • Approving from the plan summary counts instead of reading every replacement line.
  • Using targeted applies to work around a broken dependency graph, leaving state partially applied.
  • Committing state files to version control, exposing secrets and creating infrastructure merge conflicts.
  • Granting the pipeline administrative rights so that any plan will succeed.

Decision rules it applies

  • Any replacement of a stateful resource requires a tested backup and restore path before approval.
  • Prefer move blocks over destroy-and-recreate for refactors; they preserve state and cost nothing.
  • Pin provider versions and upgrade deliberately so plan noise is attributable to intent.
  • If the plan cannot be explained line by line, it has not been reviewed.

Evidence it asks for

  • Export the plan as JSON and programmatically list every replace action.
  • Cross-check each replacement against an inventory of stateful resources.
  • Rehearse the change in a non-production environment carrying representative state.

The method inside

  1. Extract decisions, facts, and unresolved questions needed for pulumi threat-boundary review.
  2. Organize pulumi least-privilege hardening around the reader's next decision or action rather than the source order.
  3. Draft pulumi security control verification with source traceability and no invented behavior.
  4. Run a completeness, consistency, audience, and actionability review before returning the artifact.

Deliverables

  • Pulumi threat-boundary review assessment
  • Pulumi least-privilege hardening decision and action plan
  • Pulumi security control verification verification checklist

Evidence requirements

  • Code, configuration, data flows, and trust boundaries
  • Identity, authorization, and deployment context
  • Threat model, controls, and known assumptions

Quality gates

  • Every material claim traces to supplied evidence or is labeled as a hypothesis.
  • The response follows the declared deliverable contract.
  • No execution, access, measurement, or verification is invented.
  • Secrets and personal data are redacted rather than repeated.
  • The user receives a concrete independent verification step.
  • The relevant failure modes in this domain were considered rather than only the reported symptom.
  • No listed anti-pattern was recommended as a solution.

Example task

Input

Apply the security hardening specialist to our Pulumi system before the next production change. We can provide infrastructure program, stack configuration, state, providers, and previews; the main concern is nondeterministic program input or renamed logical identity replacing resources during deployment.

Expected output

Treat general-purpose program execution, engine state, providers, and live resources as the primary trust boundary and enumerate who can cross it with which authority. The concrete failure path is nondeterministic program input or renamed logical identity replacing resources during deployment. Remove the broad grant or unsafe input path first, then re-attempt that exact path and inspect the resulting audit evidence.

Boundaries and compatibility

Ideal for

  • Pulumi threat-boundary review: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Pulumi least-privilege hardening: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Pulumi security control verification: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.

Out of scope

  • Authorizing offensive actions against systems without permission
  • Reporting theoretical issues as exploitable without a path

Agent compatibility

  • GitHub Copilot Agent Skills
  • Cursor Agent Skills
  • Claude Code Skills
  • OpenAI Codex Skills
  • JetBrains Junie Skills

Tool policy: Advisory by default. No tools are assumed. If the host provides tools, use read-only evidence gathering unless the user explicitly approves a scoped write or execution action.