K8s Security Advisor
Your cluster has blind spots. This mind sees them.
A senior Kubernetes security intelligence that thinks in attack paths — not checklists. It reasons from the attacker's perspective first, traces how they'd move through your cluster, and tells you exactly where to focus your defenses.
"We had a default EKS cluster and thought we were fine. This mind showed us 6 attack paths we'd never considered — including one where a compromised CI token could reach every secret in every namespace. We fixed it in a day."
What Happens When You Use It
You: "Review my cluster's security posture"
Mind: "Before I can assess that — how many namespaces? What's your tenant
model? Any compliance requirements?"
You: "12 namespaces, single-tenant, SOC2"
Mind: "Here's what I see. Your top risk is no NetworkPolicy — any compromised
pod can reach any other pod. The attack path: compromised frontend →
harvest service account token → list secrets in payments namespace →
database credentials exposed. Priority: CRITICAL.
Three things to fix this week:
1. Default-deny NetworkPolicy on every production namespace
2. Set automountServiceAccountToken: false on all non-API pods
3. Enable API server audit logging
Confidence: HIGH — this is the #1 attack vector in CIS Benchmark
assessments. CVE-independent, exploitable today."
That's the experience. Every answer follows this flow: understand your context → map the attack paths → show the gaps → prescribe with priority.
Install
myclaude install @l0z4n0/k8s-security-advisor
One command. Takes 10 seconds. The mind appears in your Claude Code automatically.
Try These First
| Ask this | You'll get |
|---|
| "Review my cluster's RBAC" | Attack path analysis of your access control + specific fixes |
| "Best runtime detection for my setup?" | Falco vs Tetragon decision framework based on YOUR constraints |
| "We found a suspicious process in production" | Step-by-step incident response sequence (don't kill the pod first!) |
| "Map our controls to SOC2" | Gap analysis with specific k8s controls for each requirement |
| "Harden our supply chain pipeline" | SLSA + SBOM + Sigstore implementation roadmap |
What It Knows Deeply
Six security domains, each with real CVEs, operational patterns, and production-tested recommendations:
| Domain | What it covers | Why it matters |
|---|
| Supply Chain | SLSA, SBOM, Sigstore, image signing | $60B in attacks globally (2025). "Scan and block" isn't enough anymore |
| Runtime Detection | Falco, Tetragon, KubeArmor | You need cameras, not just locks. Detection + enforcement |
| RBAC & Access Control | Team patterns, break-glass, 8 escalation paths | RBAC alone has 8+ privilege escalation vectors |
| Network Policy | Default-deny, microsegmentation, zero trust | Without it, every pod talks to every pod. Lateral movement is trivial |
| Incident Response | Cordon→forensics→drain, evidence preservation | Containers are ephemeral. Kill the pod = lose the evidence |
| Compliance | CIS, SOC2, PCI-DSS, HIPAA → k8s controls | Passing the audit is the floor, not the ceiling |
What It Won't Do
This mind is advisory — it thinks alongside you but never acts on your behalf.
- Won't touch your files or run commands (enforced by Claude Code)
- Won't audit application code (use AEGIS for that)
- Won't configure cloud provider IAM (AWS/GCP/Azure specific)
- Won't generate exploits or perform pentesting
- Won't certify compliance — maps controls, doesn't sign audits
Note: denied-tools blocks direct file/command access. The Agent tool is not restricted by Claude Code's current architecture — the mind's instructions explicitly prohibit execution through any channel.
Tips for Better Answers
The mind asks context questions before prescribing. Give it:
- Cluster topology — managed (EKS/GKE/AKS) or self-managed? How many nodes?
- Workload types — stateless microservices? Databases? ML training? Batch jobs?
- Compliance requirements — SOC2? PCI-DSS? HIPAA? Or just "be secure"?
- Current state — what do you already have? RBAC? NetworkPolicy? Runtime detection?
More context = sharper recommendations.
How It Reasons
Every response follows the same cognitive architecture:
1. SCOPE → Which security layer? (Cloud / Cluster / Container / Code)
2. THREAT MODEL → How would an attacker exploit this?
3. CONTROL GAP → What defenses exist? What's missing?
4. PRESCRIPTION → What to fix, in what order, with what tradeoffs
You'll notice the mind always says things like:
- "The attack path here is..." — traces the adversary's perspective
- "In production, what actually happens is..." — separates theory from reality
- "The tradeoff you're making is..." — makes hidden risk decisions visible
- Confidence: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW — never hides uncertainty
Works With
- AEGIS — code-level security (SAST, STRIDE, 300+ patterns). AEGIS handles the Code layer; this mind handles Cluster, Container, and Cloud.
- Together they cover the full 4C security model.
Built By
@l0z4n0 — informed by research from Bishop Fox, Wiz, AWS EKS Best Practices, CNCF, Sigstore, Falco, and Tetragon documentation. 11 knowledge gaps identified and addressed through structured research.

<sub>Built with MyClaude Studio Engine</sub>