How to use
- Copy the installation command and review the source package before installing it in your own agent environment.
- Check the source document for required tools, credentials and supported hosts.
- Describe your input and desired deliverable; review the output against the source material.
npx skills add https://github.com/transilienceai/communitytools --skill risk-prioritiserBefore you start
- Installation does not include a model subscription, API allowance or permission to access your files.
- Repository stars and installation counts describe activity, not an independent quality or security test.
Rendered from the source repository. Headings, examples, code, tables, links, and referenced images are preserved.
Risk Prioritiser
Consume the attack-path graph + the client-supplied business-tier map and emit a single ranked list of paths the org should remediate first. Mounted onto cloud-agent task #7.
Trigger
Cron daily after attack-path-stitcher (task #6) completes. Also event-fires when a new validated/*.json is written with nvd.score >= 9.0.
Workflow
- Load inputs.
artifacts/attack-paths.json— graph from task #6. Split intoconfirmed_paths(RFP-grade) andinferred_paths(topology/supply-chain).business-tier-map.csv— client-supplied asset → tier. Search order:{OUTPUT_DIR}/business-tier-map.csv→projects/rfp-3.3/schemas/business-tier-map.csv.
- Score each `confirmed_paths` entry.
feasibility= product of every edge'sfeasibilityalong the path. For confirmed paths this is always 1.0.technical_severity=max_cvss_along_path / 10.business_impact= tier weight of the destination (crown_jewel = 1.0 by definition).entry_exposure= 1.0 if entry node isexternal: true, else 0.5.- Final score =
feasibility × technical_severity × business_impact × entry_exposure.
- Score each single-asset validated finding that does not sit on a confirmed path. Same formula;
feasibility = 1.0,business_impact= asset's own tier weight, hop count = 1. - Score each `inferred_paths` entry, but cap their bucket placement at
theoreticalregardless of numeric score. Inferred paths NEVER reachimmediate/short_term/medium_term— RFP §3.3 requires "confirmed", and inferred paths are evidence-deficient by construction. - Sort descending. Stable tie-break order: max CVSS desc → hop count asc → finding age desc (newer first).
- Bucket into roadmap tiers.
immediate(0-7 days): confirmed AND score ≥ 0.6short_term(7-30 days): confirmed AND 0.3 ≤ score < 0.6medium_term(30-90 days): confirmed AND 0.1 ≤ score < 0.3monitor: confirmed AND score < 0.1theoretical(track-only): any path withpath_class != "confirmed". Surfaced in board reports but excluded from the remediation SLA roadmap.
- Write outputs to
artifacts/attack-paths-ranked.json+attack-paths-ranked.md. Each row carriespath_classso downstream consumers can filter.
Tier weights
| Tier | Weight |
|---|---|
crown_jewel | 1.00 |
revenue | 0.70 |
support | 0.40 |
dev | 0.20 |
unknown | 0.30 |
The unknown weight is deliberately above support to bias toward investigating un-mapped assets — they often turn out to be high-tier once discovered.
Output
{OUTPUT_DIR}/
artifacts/
attack-paths-ranked.json
attack-paths-ranked.mdattack-paths-ranked.json schema:
{
"generated_at": "2026-05-13T03:30:00Z",
"tier_weights_used": {"crown_jewel": 1.0, "revenue": 0.7, "support": 0.4, "dev": 0.2, "unknown": 0.3},
"ranked": [
{
"rank": 1,
"kind": "path",
"path_class": "confirmed",
"path_id": "asset05->asset42->asset99",
"hops": ["asset05", "asset42", "asset99"],
"feasibility": 1.0,
"max_cvss": 9.8,
"business_impact": 1.0,
"entry_exposure": 1.0,
"score": 0.98,
"bucket": "immediate",
"remediation_focus": "asset05"
},
{
"rank": 2,
"kind": "finding",
"path_class": "confirmed",
"finding_id": "finding-018",
"asset": "asset42",
"feasibility": 1.0,
"max_cvss": 9.1,
"business_impact": 0.7,
"entry_exposure": 1.0,
"score": 0.637,
"bucket": "immediate"
}
],
"buckets": {"immediate": 4, "short_term": 11, "medium_term": 22, "monitor": 8, "theoretical": 14}
}Remediation focus
For each ranked path, pick a single remediation_focus asset — the one whose patch breaks the chain at the lowest cost:
- If any edge has feasibility < 1.0 → focus on that edge's source asset. The weakest pivot is the attacker's cheapest hop; hardening it eliminates the easiest entry.
- If every edge is feasibility 1.0 (fully confirmed chain) → focus on the path's entry asset (
hops[0]). Patching the externally-reachable foothold breaks every downstream hop and is the cheapest patch surface operationally.
This rule yields a single deterministic asset id per path. The previous "edge contribution formula" was deprecated — on uniformly-confirmed chains every edge has identical contribution, which gives no useful signal.
Rules
- Always derive from `attack-paths.json`. Do not re-derive feasibility / CVSS — those are already validated by upstream tasks.
- `business-tier-map.csv` is authoritative. If an asset is missing from the map, use
unknowntier weight + flagunmapped_assets[]at the top of the JSON output. - Stable rank for stable input. Re-running on identical input must produce byte-identical output.
- No new findings. Prioritisation never creates findings; it only re-orders.
- Bucket thresholds are config. The 0.6/0.3/0.1 cuts can be overridden via
--thresholdsargument when running on a client with different remediation cadences. Default values match the Transilience report's "Immediate / Short-term / Medium-term" labels.
Implementation
The scoring is implemented deterministically by tools/risk-prioritise.py (not delegated to an LLM agent), to satisfy Rule 3 (stable rank for stable input). The tool reads artifacts/attack-paths.json and writes the two output files. Override the tier weights or bucket thresholds with --tier-weights / --thresholds JSON arguments — recorded in the output for audit.
References
reference/scoring-formula.md— worked example + edge-case behaviour.projects/rfp-3.3/schemas/business-tier-map.csv— input schema and example rows.tools/risk-prioritise.py— deterministic implementation.




