security-ownership-map

Overview of security-ownership-map skill

What security-ownership-map does

The security-ownership-map skill analyzes git history to map people to files, estimate bus factor risk, and identify ownership of sensitive code. It is designed for security-focused questions, not generic maintainer lookup. Use security-ownership-map when you need a practical view of who really touches auth, crypto, secrets, IAM, or other sensitive areas.

Who should use it

This skill is a good fit for security auditors, platform teams, engineering managers, and repo maintainers who need evidence-based answers about ownership gaps. The security-ownership-map skill helps when CODEOWNERS looks outdated, a critical path has too few active editors, or you need to explain risk using commit history instead of guesswork.

Why it is different

Compared with a plain prompt, security-ownership-map produces structured outputs for graph analysis and follow-up querying. It also includes built-in defaults for sensitive-path detection and co-change clustering, which helps surface ownership clusters and orphaned areas without hand-building the analysis each time. The main decision point: use it when the job is to assess security ownership risk from history, not just list contributors.

How to Use security-ownership-map skill

Install security-ownership-map

Use the standard install flow for the skills directory: npx skills add openai/skills --skill security-ownership-map. After installation, confirm the repo path and open skills/.curated/security-ownership-map/SKILL.md first so you understand scope, defaults, and output expectations before running analysis.

Read these files first

For security-ownership-map usage, start with SKILL.md, then check scripts/run_ownership_map.py, scripts/build_ownership_map.py, scripts/query_ownership.py, and references/neo4j-import.md. agents/openai.yaml is useful for the default intent, while the scripts show the actual command-line behavior, filters, and output names you will need for a real repo.

Turn a rough ask into a good prompt

Best results come from a prompt that names the repo, the security concern, and the time window. For example: “Run security-ownership-map on this repository and identify bus-factor risks in auth/, oauth/, and secrets/ over the last 12 months. Exclude bot-only commits, summarize the highest-risk files, and highlight any CODEOWNERS mismatch.” That is stronger than “analyze ownership,” because it gives the skill a target, a scope, and a decision criterion.

Workflow that materially improves output

Use the one-shot runner when you want a fast security-ownership-map install-to-result path: scripts/run_ownership_map.py builds the dataset, scripts/query_ownership.py slices it, and references/neo4j-import.md supports graph import. If a repo has noisy history, narrow by --since and --until, exclude automation, and review the sensitive-path rules before trusting the final bus-factor result.

security-ownership-map skill FAQ

Is this for general ownership questions?

No. The security-ownership-map guide is aimed at security-oriented ownership analysis grounded in git history. If you only need a contributor list, a module owner, or a lightweight project summary, a normal prompt or repo grep is usually enough.

Does it replace CODEOWNERS?

No. It is better as a reality check. security-ownership-map for Security Audit tells you who has actually changed sensitive code, which can differ from assigned ownership. That makes it useful for identifying stale mappings, hidden single points of failure, and files that look covered but are not.

Is it beginner-friendly?

Yes, if you can point it at a git repo and describe the security scope. The most common mistake is being too vague. The skill works best when you specify which paths, tags, or risk themes matter, because that shapes the ownership graph and the final interpretation.

What are the main limits?

It depends on git history quality. Sparse history, rewritten history, bot-heavy repos, and large mechanical commits can distort ownership signals. If the repository has lots of generated files or monorepo churn, you may need tighter filters or a narrower time window before the output is decision-grade.

How to Improve security-ownership-map skill

Give stronger scope signals

The biggest quality boost comes from naming exact paths and risk categories. Instead of “find risky files,” ask for “auth, token, and key-management files modified in the last 180 days.” That helps security-ownership-map weight the right history and avoid overfitting to unrelated churn.

Reduce noise before you trust the graph

If the output looks crowded, exclude merge noise, bots, or broad dependency updates, then rerun. The security-ownership-map skill is strongest when commit attribution reflects real human maintenance, so filtering out dependabot-style changes and huge cross-cutting commits often improves the ownership map more than adding more context.

Iterate with follow-up queries

Use the first run to find the files and people that matter, then query narrower slices with scripts/query_ownership.py. A good second-pass prompt might ask for the top sensitive files with bus factor 1, or for the community around a single risky path. That turns the skill from a broad scan into an actionable review.

Improve decision quality, not just output volume

When you want better security-ownership-map usage, ask for comparison points: “Which sensitive files are effectively orphaned?”, “Where does CODEOWNERS disagree with history?”, or “Which clusters have a single maintainer and why?” Those questions force the skill to explain risk, not just list names, which is the main value for a security audit.