pasta-risk
This skill should be used when the user asks to "calculate risk scores", "prioritize mitigations", "generate remediation roadmap", "analyze business impact", or is running PASTA stage 7. Also triggers when the user asks about risk-weighted findings, compliance gap analysis, or executive security summary in a threat modeling context. Part of the PASTA threat modeling methodology (Stage 7 of 7).
What this skill does
# PASTA Stage 7: Risk & Impact Analysis Produce business-weighted risk scores by combining Stage 6 exploitability with Stage 1 business impact. Deliver a prioritized remediation roadmap balancing risk reduction against effort. This is the final PASTA stage. ## Supported Flags Read `../../shared/schemas/flags.md` for the full flag specification. Key behaviors: | Flag | Stage 7 Behavior | |------|------------------| | `--scope` | Inherits from prior stages. Synthesizes all prior outputs. | | `--depth quick` | Top 5 risk-ranked findings with one-line mitigations only. | | `--depth standard` | Full risk scoring, mitigation roadmap, and compliance mapping. | | `--depth deep` | Standard + residual risk assessment, systemic issues, cost-benefit per mitigation. | | `--depth expert` | Deep + executive summary, quantified risk, formal compliance gap report. | | `--severity` | Filter final output to findings at or above the threshold. | | `--format md` | Standalone markdown report for stakeholder distribution. | | `--fix` | Chain into fix mode for highest-priority findings. | ## Framework Context Read `../../shared/frameworks/pasta.md`, Stage 7 section. PASTA is SEQUENTIAL. Stage 7 consumes all prior stage outputs to produce the final deliverable. ## Prerequisites **Required**: Stage 6 output -- attack scenarios, DREAD scores, detection gaps. Also needs: business assets and compliance (Stage 1), entry points (Stage 2), components (Stage 3), threats (Stage 4), vulnerabilities (Stage 5). If unavailable, warn and assume. ## Workflow ### Step 1: Calculate Business-Weighted Risk Risk Score = Exploitability (DREAD, 1-10) x Business Impact (1-10). | Impact Level | Score | Criteria | |-------------|-------|----------| | Critical | 9-10 | Regulatory breach, massive financial loss, existential threat | | High | 7-8 | Significant data breach, major outage, legal liability | | Medium | 4-6 | Limited exposure, partial degradation, reputational harm | | Low | 1-3 | Minor disclosure, negligible business effect | ### Step 2: Rank Findings Order by composite risk score (descending). Break ties by: compliance implications, attack complexity (simpler ranks higher), detection coverage (undetectable ranks higher). ### Step 3: Propose Mitigations | Effort | Definition | Timeline | |--------|-----------|----------| | **Quick win** | Single file change, config update, dependency bump | Same day | | **Short-term** | Targeted code changes, new middleware or control | 1-2 sprints | | **Long-term** | Architectural change, new service, framework migration | Quarterly | Prioritize by risk-reduction-per-effort. Identify mitigations resolving multiple findings. ### Step 4: Map to Compliance Cross-reference with Stage 1 compliance requirements: which findings violate regulatory controls, which would be flagged in audit, mandated timelines, documentation needed. ### Step 5: Assess Residual Risk After proposed mitigations: what risk remains, what needs formal acceptance, what compensating controls exist, what monitoring is needed. ### Step 6: Executive Summary Non-technical summary: overall posture, top 3 immediate actions, phased effort estimate, compliance status and regulatory exposure. ## Analysis Checklist 1. Which findings, if exploited, would cause the greatest business harm? 2. Which mitigations give the highest risk reduction for lowest effort? 3. Are there findings violating regulatory requirements needing immediate remediation? 4. What residual risk remains after all proposed mitigations? 5. Are there systemic issues that, if fixed, resolve multiple findings? 6. What is the total estimated effort for all recommended mitigations? 7. Should any findings be formally accepted rather than fixed? 8. What ongoing monitoring is needed after remediation? ## Output Format Stage 7 produces the **Final PASTA Report**. ID prefix: **PASTA** (e.g., `PASTA-001`). ``` ## PASTA Stage 7: Risk & Impact Analysis ### Executive Summary **Risk Posture**: [Critical / High / Moderate / Low] [2-3 sentence summary] **Immediate Actions**: [N] | **Total Findings**: [N] (X critical, Y high, Z medium) **Effort**: [quick wins: N, short-term: N, long-term: N] ### Risk-Ranked Findings | Rank | ID | Finding | Risk Score | Exploitability | Business Impact | Effort | |------|-------|---------|-----------|---------------|----------------|--------| | 1 | PASTA-001 | SQL injection in search | 81 | 9.0 | 9 (breach) | Quick win | ### Remediation Roadmap #### Quick Wins (Immediate) | Finding | Mitigation | Risk Reduction | Effort | |---------|-----------|---------------|--------| #### Short-Term (1-2 Sprints) | Finding | Mitigation | Risk Reduction | Effort | |---------|-----------|---------------|--------| #### Long-Term (Quarterly) | Finding | Mitigation | Risk Reduction | Effort | |---------|-----------|---------------|--------| ### Compliance Gaps | Regulation | Requirement | Finding | Status | Deadline | |-----------|------------|---------|--------|----------| ### Residual Risk | Risk | After Mitigation | Compensating Controls | Accepted | |------|-----------------|----------------------|----------| ``` Findings follow `../../shared/schemas/findings.md` with: - `dread`: DREAD scoring from Stage 6 - `references.cwe`: from Stage 5, `references.owasp`: OWASP mapping, `references.mitre_attck`: from Stage 4 - `metadata.tool`: `"pasta-risk"`, `metadata.framework`: `"pasta"`, `metadata.category`: `"Stage-7"` ## Completion This is the final PASTA stage. The output is the complete threat model deliverable: actionable, prioritized, and tied to business value. Track remediation progress and schedule periodic reassessment as the application evolves.
Related in Security
mac-ops
IncludedComprehensive macOS workstation operations — diagnose kernel panics, identify failing drives, audit launchd startup items, decode wake reasons, triage TCC permission denials, manage APFS snapshots, recover from no-boot. Use for: Mac is slow, slow bootup, won't boot, kernel panic, kernel_task hot, mds_stores CPU, photoanalysisd, cloudd, login loop, gray screen, sleep wake failure, drive failing, IO errors, APFS snapshots eating space, Time Machine local snapshots, Spotlight indexing, launchd, LaunchAgent, LaunchDaemon, login items, TCC permissions, Full Disk Access, Screen Recording denied, Gatekeeper, quarantine, com.apple.quarantine, app is damaged, helper tool, /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools, pmset, wake reasons, dark wake, sysdiagnose, panic.ips, DiagnosticReports, configuration profile, MDM profile, remote diagnostics over SSH.
a11y-audit
IncludedRun accessibility audits on web projects combining automated scanning (axe-core, Lighthouse) with WCAG 2.1 AA compliance mapping, manual check guidance, and structured reporting. Output is configurable: markdown report only, markdown plus machine-readable JSON, or markdown plus issue tracker integration. Use this skill whenever the user mentions "accessibility audit", "a11y audit", "WCAG audit", "accessibility check", "compliance scan", or asks to check a web project for accessibility issues. Also trigger when the user wants to verify WCAG conformance or map findings to a specific standard (CAN-ASC-6.2, EN 301 549, ADA/AODA).
erpclaw
IncludedAI-native ERP system with self-extending OS. Full accounting, invoicing, inventory, purchasing, tax, billing, HR, payroll, advanced accounting (ASC 606/842, intercompany, consolidation), and financial reporting. 413 actions across 14 domains, 43 expansion modules. Constitutional guardrails, adversarial audit, schema migration. Double-entry GL, immutable audit trail, US GAAP.
assess
IncludedAssesses and rates quality 0-10 across multiple dimensions (correctness, maintainability, security, performance, testability, simplicity) with pros/cons analysis. Compares against project conventions and prior decisions from memory. Produces structured evaluation reports with actionable improvement suggestions. Use when evaluating code, designs, architectures, or comparing alternative approaches.
spring-boot-security-jwt
IncludedProvides JWT authentication and authorization patterns for Spring Boot 3.5.x covering token generation with JJWT, Bearer/cookie authentication, database/OAuth2 integration, and RBAC/permission-based access control using Spring Security 6.x. Use when implementing authentication or authorization in Spring Boot applications.
code-hardcode-audit
IncludedDetect hardcoded values, magic numbers, and leaked secrets. TRIGGERS - hardcode audit, magic numbers, PLR2004, secret scanning.