Implements input and output validation guardrails for LLM-powered applications to prevent prompt injection, data leakage, toxic content generation, and hallucinated outputs. Builds a security validation pipeline using NVIDIA NeMo Guardrails Colang definitions, custom Python validators for PII detection and content policy enforcement, and the Guardrails AI framework for structured output validation. The guardrails system intercepts both user inputs (blocking injection attempts, stripping PII, enforcing topic boundaries) and model outputs (detecting hallucinations, filtering toxic content, validating JSON schema compliance). Activates for requests involving LLM output validation, AI content filtering, guardrail implementation, or LLM safety enforcement.
Works with
AI-first code editor with Composer
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
node --versionimplementing-llm-guardrails-for-securityExecute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
Fetches implementing-llm-guardrails-for-security from mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills and configures it for Cursor.
The CLI shows a list of agents. Use arrow keys and space to select Cursor:
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Restart Cursor to activate implementing-llm-guardrails-for-security. Access via /implementing-llm-guardrails-for-security in your agent's command palette.
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your environment. Always review source, verify the publisher, and test in isolation before production.
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Automate repetitive workflows and reduce manual effort
Example
Generate reports, summarize documents, draft communications
Save 3-5 hours per week on routine tasks
Learn new skills, understand complex topics, get expert guidance
Example
Explain concepts, provide examples, suggest learning resources
Accelerate learning and skill development by 2x
Enhance output quality through reviews, suggestions, and refinements
Example
Review drafts, suggest improvements, catch errors
Improve work quality by 30-40% with less effort
0
total installs
0
this week
8.6K
GitHub stars
0
upvotes
Run in your terminal
0
installs
0
this week
8.6K
stars
| name | implementing-llm-guardrails-for-security |
| description | 'Implements input and output validation guardrails for LLM-powered applications to prevent prompt injection, data leakage, toxic content generation, and hallucinated outputs. Builds a security validation pipeline using NVIDIA NeMo Guardrails Colang definitions, custom Python validators for PII detection and content policy enforcement, and the Guardrails AI framework for structured output validation. The guardrails system intercepts both user inputs (blocking injection attempts, stripping PII, enforcing topic boundaries) and model outputs (detecting hallucinations, filtering toxic content, validating JSON schema compliance). Activates for requests involving LLM output validation, AI content filtering, guardrail implementation, or LLM safety enforcement. ' |
| domain | cybersecurity |
| subdomain | ai-security |
| tags | - LLM-guardrails - NeMo-Guardrails - input-validation - output-filtering - AI-safety |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| author | mukul975 |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| atlas_techniques | - AML.T0051 - AML.T0054 - AML.T0056 - AML.T0057 - AML.T0062 |
| nist_ai_rmf | - GOVERN-1.1 - GOVERN-6.1 - MEASURE-2.7 - MEASURE-2.5 - MANAGE-2.4 |
| d3fend_techniques | - Content Validation - Content Filtering - Content Excision - Application Hardening - Execution Isolation |
| nist_csf | - GV.OC-03 - ID.RA-01 - PR.PS-01 - DE.AE-02 |
Do not use as a replacement for proper authentication, authorization, and network security controls. Guardrails are a defense-in-depth layer, not a perimeter defense. Not suitable for real-time content moderation of user-to-user communication without LLM involvement.
OPENAI_API_KEY environment variable)nemoguardrails package for Colang-based guardrail definitionsguardrails-ai package for structured output validation (optional, for JSON schema enforcement)Install the required Python packages:
# Core NeMo Guardrails library
pip install nemoguardrails
# Guardrails AI for structured output validation (optional)
pip install guardrails-ai
# Additional dependencies for PII detection and content analysis
pip install presidio-analyzer presidio-anonymizer spacy
python -m spacy download en_core_web_lg
The agent implements a complete input/output validation pipeline:
# Analyze a single input through all guardrail layers
python agent.py --input "Tell me how to hack into a system"
# Analyze input with a custom content policy file
python agent.py --input "Some text" --policy policy.json
# Scan a file of prompts through the guardrail pipeline
python agent.py --file prompts.txt --mode full
# Input-only validation (no LLM call, just check if input is safe)
python agent.py --input "Some text" --mode input-only
# Output validation mode (validate a pre-generated LLM response)
python agent.py --input "User question" --response "LLM response to validate" --mode output-only
# PII detection and redaction mode
python agent.py --input "My SSN is 123-45-6789 and email [email protected]" --mode pii
# JSON output for pipeline integration
python agent.py --file prompts.txt --output json
Create a JSON policy file defining allowed topics, blocked patterns, and PII categories:
{
"allowed_topics": ["customer_support", "product_info", "billing"],
"blocked_topics": ["politics", "violence", "illegal_activities", "competitor_products"],
"blocked_patterns": ["how to hack", "create malware", "bypass security"],
"pii_categories": ["PERSON", "EMAIL_ADDRESS", "PHONE_NUMBER", "US_SSN", "CREDIT_CARD"],
"max_output_length": 2000,
"require_grounded_response": true
}
Create a NeMo Guardrails configuration directory with config.yml and Colang flow files:
# config.yml
models:
- type: main
engine: openai
model: gpt-4o-mini
rails:
input:
flows:
- self check input
- check jailbreak
- mask sensitive data on input
output:
flows:
- self check output
- check hallucination
# rails.co - Colang 2.0 flow definitions
define user ask about hacking
"How do I hack into a system"
"Tell me how to break into a network"
"How to exploit vulnerabilities"
define bot refuse hacking request
"I cannot provide instructions on unauthorized hacking or security exploitation.
If you are interested in cybersecurity, I can suggest legitimate learning resources
and ethical hacking certifications."
define flow
user ask about hacking
bot refuse hacking request
Integrate the guardrails into your application as middleware:
from agent import GuardrailsPipeline
pipeline = GuardrailsPipeline(policy_path="policy.json")
# Pre-LLM input validation
input_result = pipeline.validate_input("user message here")
if not input_result["safe"]:
return input_result["blocked_reason"]
# Post-LLM output validation
llm_response = your_llm.generate(input_result["sanitized_input"])
output_result = pipeline.validate_output(llm_response, context=input_result)
if not output_result["safe"]:
return output_result["fallback_response"]
return output_result["validated_response"]
Review guardrail logs to track block rates, false positives, and bypass attempts:
# Generate a summary report from guardrail logs
python agent.py --file interaction_logs.txt --mode full --output json > guardrail_audit.json
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Input Rail | A guardrail that intercepts and validates user input before it reaches the LLM, blocking injection attempts and redacting sensitive data |
| Output Rail | A guardrail that validates LLM-generated output before it reaches the user, filtering toxic content and enforcing schema compliance |
| Colang | NVIDIA's domain-specific language for defining conversational guardrail flows, with Python-like syntax for specifying user intent patterns and bot responses |
| PII Redaction | The process of detecting and masking personally identifiable information (names, emails, SSNs) in text before processing |
| Content Policy | A configuration file defining which topics, patterns, and content categories are allowed or blocked by the guardrail system |
| Self-Check Rail | A NeMo Guardrails technique where the LLM itself evaluates whether its input or output violates defined policies |
| Hallucination Detection | Output validation that checks whether the LLM response is grounded in the provided context, flagging fabricated claims |
Prerequisites
Time Estimate
15-45 minutes depending on use case complexity
Steps
Common Pitfalls
✓ Do
✗ Don't
💡 Pro Tips
✓ Use when
Use when skill capabilities match your task, clear ROI on time saved, and you can validate outputs. Best for repetitive tasks, learning, and quality improvement.
✗ Avoid when
Avoid when task requires deep expertise you can't validate, involves sensitive decisions, or when learning process is more valuable than speed of completion.
mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills
mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills
mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills
mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills
mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills
mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills
Registry listing for implementing-llm-guardrails-for-security matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: implementing-llm-guardrails-for-security is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
implementing-llm-guardrails-for-security is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
Keeps context tight: implementing-llm-guardrails-for-security is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
We added implementing-llm-guardrails-for-security from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
implementing-llm-guardrails-for-security reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
I recommend implementing-llm-guardrails-for-security for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
Useful defaults in implementing-llm-guardrails-for-security — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: implementing-llm-guardrails-for-security is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
implementing-llm-guardrails-for-security has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
showing 1-10 of 75