Receber por email
← Voltar para o catálogo

backstage-scaffolder-template-review

Utilize esta skill para revisar templates de software do Backstage Scaffolder, avaliando sua segurança para autoatendimento, controles RBAC, validação de parâmetros de entrada, raio de impacto de ações e exposição de segredos nas saídas.

19estrelas
Atualizado há 4 meses

Ver no GitHub ↗ Licença: Apache-2.0

Como adicionar

/plugin marketplace add Raishin/vanguard-frontier-agentic

O comando exato pode variar conforme o repositório. Confira o README no GitHub.

Para o autor da skill

Cole no README do seu repo

Mostra que sua skill está catalogada na Skillteca, gera backlink e tráfego rastreável.

[![Skillteca](https://www.skillteca.com.br/api/badge/backstage-scaffolder-template-review/svg)](https://www.skillteca.com.br/skills/backstage-scaffolder-template-review)
#ai

Skills relacionadas

Ver todas de Desenvolvimento →

Alerta por categoria

Receba novas skills de Desenvolvimento toda segunda

1 email curto, só com as skills novas de Desenvolvimento. 4 minutos de leitura, sem spam, cancela com 1 clique.

Você confirma o email no primeiro envio. Sem spam. Cancela com 1 clique.

Ler descrição completa

Backstage Scaffolder Template Review

Purpose

Review Backstage Scaffolder Template kind resources for action blast-radius, input parameter injection risk, RBAC permission gate coverage, integration secret scope, catalog entity poisoning via catalog:register, and plaintext secret exposure in output: stanzas. Backstage Scaffolder gives developers a curated UI to trigger powerful backend actions — without RBAC gates and input validation, every authenticated developer effectively has write access to whatever the Scaffolder integration credentials can reach.

Lean operating rules

  • Prefer user-provided sanitized Template YAML as primary evidence; official Backstage docs are the authoritative fallback.
  • Treat any steps: action that provisions real cloud infrastructure (Terraform, Crossplane CRD apply, CloudFormation deploy, kubectl apply) with no RBAC permission gate as a CRITICAL finding.
  • Treat input parameters flowing unsanitized into publish:github.repoUrl, file-path actions, or shell-exec actions as a HIGH finding — path traversal and injection are realistic.
  • Treat publish:github with visibility: public as the default or without an allowedHosts constraint as a HIGH finding.
  • Treat output: stanzas exposing plaintext generated credentials, connection strings, or API keys in the Backstage UI as a HIGH finding.
  • Treat the absence of @backstage/plugin-permission-backend policies for infrastructure-provisioning templates as a HIGH finding — any authenticated Backstage user can trigger them.
  • Treat catalog:register accepting arbitrary user-supplied YAML without server-side entity schema validation as a MEDIUM finding — catalog poisoning overwrites ownership and lifecycle metadata.
  • Keep the answer scoped: report what was reviewed, the evidence level, and exactly which steps or fields triggered each finding.

References

Load these only when needed:

  • [Workflow and output contract](references/workflow-and-output.md)

Response minimum

  • Scoped target (Template metadata.name) and evidence level
  • Each steps: action type and its provisioning blast radius
  • Input parameter validation gaps (missing maxLength, pattern, enum)
  • RBAC permission gate verdict (present / absent / partial)
  • Integration secret scope assessment
  • output: stanza exposure assessment
  • Safe next actions and open questions
Compartilhar X LinkedIn