Loading
Systematically verifies suspected security bugs to eliminate false positives, producing a TRUE POSITIVE or FALSE POSITIVE verdict with documented evidence for each. Use when asked whether a specific f
The skill file stays in the publisher's repository.
Paste the copied command in a terminal. It installs this SKILL.md into that agent.
npx skills add trailofbits/skills --skill fp-check -a cursor -y
Systematically verifies suspected security bugs to eliminate false positives, producing a TRUE POSITIVE or FALSE POSITIVE verdict with documented evidence for each. Use when asked whether a specific finding is real, exploitable, or a false positive, or to verify or validate a suspected vulnerability — not for hunting or discovering new bugs.
Systematically verifies suspected security bugs to eliminate false positives, producing a TRUE POSITIVE or FALSE POSITIVE verdict with documented evidence for each. Use when asked whether a specific finding is real, exploitable, or a false positive, or to verify or validate a suspected vulnerability — not for hunting or discovering new bugs.
If you catch yourself thinking any of these, STOP.
| Rationalization | Why It's Wrong | Required Action |
|---|---|---|
| "Rapid analysis of remaining bugs" | Every bug gets full verification | Return to task list, verify next bug through all phases |
| "This pattern looks dangerous, so it's a vulnerability" | Pattern recognition is not analysis | Complete data flow tracing before any conclusion |
| "Skipping full verification for efficiency" | No partial analysis allowed | Execute all steps per the chosen verification path |
| "The code looks unsafe, reporting without tracing data flow" | Unsafe-looking code may have upstream validation | Trace the complete path from source to sink |
| "Similar code was vulnerable elsewhere" | Each context has different validation, callers, and protections | Verify this specific instance independently |
| "This is clearly critical" | LLMs are biased toward seeing bugs and overrating severity | Complete devil's advocate review; prove it with evidence |
Before any analysis, restate the bug in your own words. If you cannot do this clearly, ask the user for clarification. Half of false positives collapse at this step — the claim doesn't make coherent sense when restated precisely.
Document:
parse_header() when content_length exceeds 4096")memcpy at line 142")After Step 0, choose a verification path.
Use when ALL of these hold:
Follow standard-verification.md. No task tracking — work through the linear checklist sequentially, documenting findings inline.
Use when ANY of these hold:
Follow deep-verification.md. Track each phase as a task with explicit dependencies, and execute the phases using the plugin's analysis agents.
Start with standard. Standard verification has two built-in escalation checkpoints that route to deep when complexity exceeds the linear checklist.
When verifying multiple bugs at once:
After processing ALL suspected bugs, provide: