verify-fix
Use only when the user explicitly requests verification that a security fix remediates a reported vulnerability. Do not invoke automatically while implementing fixes, reviewing ordinary code changes, or running tests. Do not use for non-security fixes, candidate finding validation, or full repository scans.
- Installs
- 50
- Last 24h
- —
- Trending rank
- —
- Security
- Not audited
Install
Works with every agent the skills CLI supports.
npx skills add https://github.com/openai/codex-security --skill verify-fix- 01
Install
Run the command in your project. The CLI asks which agents to install for.
- 02
Describe the task
Ask your agent for something this skill covers. It loads verify-fix automatically when relevant.
- 03
Review the result
The agent follows the SKILL.md steps, scripts and references bundled with the skill.
SKILL.md
The instructions your agent reads when the skill is triggered.
Verify Fix
When to Use
Invoke this skill only for an explicit request to verify a security fix, including a direct $verify-fix invocation. A request to implement a fix or run its tests does not by itself request this skill. For other tasks, follow the user's requested workflow and response format.
Objective
Determine whether each supplied security finding has been fixed in the current checkout. Operate in standalone verification-only mode; do not create, modify, or delete repository files, apply patches, commit changes, write artifacts, or modify issue trackers.
Assessment Method
Use ../../references/static-finding-assessment.md to identify the original attacker-controlled source, security control, sensitive sink, reachable path, trust boundary, counterevidence, and proof gaps. If the caller already supplied that reference in the prompt, use the supplied contents without reading it again.
Use standard verification unless the caller explicitly selects verificationMode: static. In static mode, assess the current source and diff, the original exploit path and plausible bypasses, and legitimate behavior through callers and existing tests read as source. Do not install dependencies or run builds, tests, reproducers, or the application, including when validation instructions request them. Repository-reading tools remain available. State in the evidence that this is a static assessment and runtime checks were not performed; do not count them as passed or require them for this assessment. Missing runtime tooling alone does not make the result inconclusive, but a material gap in the source evidence does.
Verification Workflow
- Establish the original vulnerability, its preconditions, affected security boundary, and legitimate behavior that must continue to work.
- Confirm the current checkout contains the affected component. Follow moved or refactored code rather than treating a missing file, removed line, or changed function name as proof of remediation.
- Trace the original exploit path through the current implementation and check the nearest relevant control, equivalent paths, and plausible bypasses.
- In standard mode, run the original reproducer, focused regression checks, or legitimate-behavior checks only when they can run without modifying the repository. Preserve exact static evidence when runtime checks are unavailable.
- Return one result per supplied finding, in the requested order. Treat closed tickets, unrelated passing tests, and the absence of a new scan finding as insufficient proof.
Result Contract
For interactive conversations, use readable Markdown unless the caller requests another format. Give a verdict for each finding, explain the supporting evidence with source references, and identify relevant checks and remaining proof gaps.
When the caller requests JSON or supplies an automated result contract, return exactly one JSON object in this shape. CLI verification workflows explicitly request this contract. Use the same verdicts and evidence requirements in either format.
{
"results": [
{
"id": "finding-or-issue-id",
"status": "fixed|still_vulnerable|inconclusive",
"evidence": "specific current source, exploit, test, or proof-gap evidence"
}
]
}
- Use
fixedonly when evidence proves the original security boundary is closed and legitimate behavior remains intact. - Use
still_vulnerableonly when evidence proves the original vulnerable path remains reachable. - Use
inconclusivefor a repository mismatch, missing original context, unavailable checks required by the selected mode, an unproven legitimate control, or another material proof gap.
Never infer a stronger verdict by weakening the read-only boundary, substituting a different vulnerability, or hiding missing evidence.
FAQ
What does the verify-fix skill do?
Use only when the user explicitly requests verification that a security fix remediates a reported vulnerability. Do not invoke automatically while implementing fixes, reviewing ordinary code changes, or running tests. Do not use for non-security fixes, candidate finding validation, or full repository scans.
How do I install verify-fix?
Run npx skills add https://github.com/openai/codex-security --skill verify-fix in your project. The skills CLI detects the agents you use and copies the skill into the right folder. For Claude Code you can also place the skill folder at ~/.claude/skills/verify-fix/ (personal) or .claude/skills/verify-fix/ (project).
Which AI agents can use verify-fix?
Any agent that supports the open Agent Skills format (a folder with a SKILL.md file), including Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Gemini CLI, Windsurf, Cline, OpenCode and more.
Is verify-fix safe to install?
No partner security audit is available yet. Skills can run commands and scripts, so read the SKILL.md and any bundled files before installing.
Who maintains verify-fix?
It is published by openai in openai/codex-security. It has 50 recorded installs.
More from openai/codex-security
attack-path-analysis
openai/codex-security
Use when Codex is already in the attack-path-analysis phase of a security scan or the user explicitly asks to trace a security finding from source to sink and calibrate severity. Do not use as the primary trigger for full PR, commit, branch, patch, or repository scans.
threat-model
openai/codex-security
Open the skill to read its SKILL.md instructions.
security-scan
openai/codex-security
Use for a standard, single-pass security audit of an entire repository or a scoped path, package, folder, or submodule with no diff to review. This is the default repository scan. Do not use for PR, commit, branch, or working-tree diffs, or for deep, multi-pass scans.
deep-security-scan
openai/codex-security
Use when the user asks for a deep, exhaustive, multi-pass, or variance-reducing repository-wide or scoped-path Codex Security scan. Run repeated independent Standard scans with the Codex Security deep-scan tool. Do not use for PRs, commits, branch diffs, or working-tree diffs.
security-diff-scan
openai/codex-security
Review a pull request, commit, branch diff, or working-tree patch for security vulnerabilities.
propose-security-hardening
openai/codex-security
Open the skill to read its SKILL.md instructions.
Popular security skills
azure-compliance
microsoft/azure-skills
Run Azure compliance and security audits with azqr plus Key Vault expiration checks. Covers best-practice assessment, resource review, policy/compliance validation, and security posture checks. WHEN: compliance scan, security audit, BEFORE running azqr (compliance cli tool), Azure best practices, Key Vault expiration check, expired certificates, expiring secrets, orphaned resources, compliance assessment.
minimal-run-and-audit
lllllllama/rigorpilot-skills
Rigor Run skill for README-first deep learning repo reproduction. Use when the task is specifically to capture or normalize evidence from the selected smoke test or documented inference or evaluation command and write standardized reprooutputs/ files, including patch notes when repository files changed. Do not use for training execution, initial repo intake, generic environment setup, paper lookup, target selection, hidden scientific-meaning changes, or end-to-end orchestration by itself.
seo-audit
coreyhaines31/marketingskills
When the user wants to audit, review, or diagnose SEO issues on their site. Also use when the user mentions "SEO audit," "technical SEO," "why am I not ranking," "SEO issues," "on-page SEO," "meta tags review," "SEO health check," "my traffic dropped," "lost rankings," "not showing up in Google," "site isn't ranking," "Google update hit me," "page speed," "core web vitals," "crawl errors," "indexing issues," "stuck on page 2," "striking distance keywords," "title tag rewrite," "low CTR," "local SEO," "Google Business Profile," or "map pack." Use this even if the user just says something vague like "my SEO is bad" or "help with SEO" — start with an audit. For building pages at scale to target keywords, see programmatic-seo. For adding structured data, see schema. For AI search optimization, see ai-seo.
firebase-security-rules-auditor
firebase/agent-skills
Audits Firebase (Firestore, Cloud Storage) security rules for vulnerabilities, privilege escalation, role bypasses, create vs update inconsistencies, resource exhaustion, type safety, size limits, and hasOnly ownership checks. Use when auditing/reviewing rules, running red-team rule assessments, or scoring against auditor checklists. Don't use for Firebase CLI (login, deploy), Auth, Crashlytics, Remote Config, or database queries.
audit
pbakaus/impeccable
Run technical quality checks across accessibility, performance, theming, responsive design, and anti-patterns. Generates a scored report with P0-P3 severity ratings and actionable plan. Use when the user wants an accessibility check, performance audit, or technical quality review.
competitors
coreyhaines31/marketingskills
When the user wants to create competitor comparison or alternative pages for SEO and buyer-facing use. Also use when the user mentions 'alternative page,' 'vs page,' 'competitor comparison,' 'comparison page,' '[Product] vs [Product],' '[Product] alternative,' 'competitive landing pages,' 'how do we compare to X,' 'competitor teardown,' 'audit our competitor pages,' 'are our comparison pages out of date,' or 'competitive asset audit.' Use this for any content that positions your product against competitors. Covers four formats: singular alternative, plural alternatives, you vs competitor, and competitor vs competitor. For auditing existing claims (not researching competitors from scratch, which is competitor-profiling; not technical SEO on these pages, which is seo-audit), use the asset audit here. For internal battle cards and sales-specific competitor docs, see sales-enablement.