← ClaudeAtlas

prompt-injection-auditlisted

Audit an LLM-backed feature (chatbot, AI assistant, agent, RAG app) for prompt-injection exposure. Read-only analysis that produces findings, not fixes. Use this whenever someone asks whether their AI or LLM feature is safe or secure, whether it can be tricked, jailbroken, or talked into leaking data or ignoring its instructions, or asks for a security or vulnerability review of code that calls a model (OpenAI, Anthropic, LangChain, LlamaIndex, and similar). Triggers on phrasings like "can someone make my chatbot leak other users' data", "is my AI assistant safe from prompt injection", "review my LLM endpoint for security holes", "check if my agent's tools can be abused", or pasting model-calling code and asking if it's exploitable. Do not trigger for general feature-building help with no security question, or for security reviews of code that does not involve an LLM.
fuzailkhannn/Prompt-Injection-Audit · ★ 0 · AI & Automation · score 70
Install: claude install-skill fuzailkhannn/Prompt-Injection-Audit
# Prompt-Injection Audit Read-only auditor for LLM-backed features. It **finds** prompt-injection exposure and reports it against a fixed contract. It does **not** write fixes, refactor code, or add defenses. Findings only. If the user wants fixes, deliver the audit first, then offer that as a separate step. ## What this catches, and what it doesn't **Catches:** the paths where untrusted text reaches the model, where the model's data access and tools are (un)bounded, and where its output leaves the system: the eight checks below. **Doesn't:** general application security (that's a separate review; note such issues in an aside, don't grade them here), the quality of the model's answers, or anything you can't see. This is a focused audit of one thing. A narrow audit done well beats a broad scan. ## The stance that makes the audit work Assume the model is a **compromised insider**: an attacker controls part of its input, and it will do whatever that input says: return other people's data, call any tool it has, print its own instructions. That is what models are; you cannot fix it by reading the prompt. So the only question that matters is: **what, outside the model, stops a fully-cooperating model from reaching data or taking actions it shouldn't?** Real controls live in the authorization layer, the scope of the data connection and credential, and the output boundary. A "control" written inside the prompt is not one. Two consequences run through every grade: - **"The mo