User Story:

As a developer, in order to understand the application’s security posture and maintain it as features are added, I want a living threat model that documents trust boundaries and data flows, with tooling and process to keep it current

Preconditions:

• Skeleton complete (Slice 0)
• Deployment infrastructure design documented

Acceptance Criteria:

• Threat model document exists in catalog/architecture/ covering current trust boundaries and data flows
• Each trust boundary documents what data crosses it, what could go wrong, current mitigations, and residual risk
• Risk summary table provides a scannable overview of identified threats with likelihood, impact, and mitigation status
• ADR documents the decision to maintain a living threat model and the chosen methodology
• Definition of done for all stories is updated to align with Flexion’s standard template, including the threat model review checkpoint
• Threat model is browsable through the catalog alongside existing architecture docs
• Claude skill exists that reviews the current threat model against branch changes and identifies whether updates are needed

Success Metrics:

• Developers can identify the security implications of a proposed change within minutes by consulting the threat model
• Threat model updates are a routine part of story completion, not a separate effort
• New trust boundaries or data flows introduced by stories are captured in the threat model before the story is marked done

Notes:

Methodology:

• Trust boundary / data flow analysis — map boundaries, identify threats at each crossing
• Complements with a risk summary table for non-data-flow threats (supply chain, DoS, infrastructure access)
• Aligns with Flexion’s security-compliance practices: data flow tracing, logging hygiene, secrets management

Scope:

• This story establishes the threat model and the process to maintain it
• It does NOT implement specific mitigations — those belong to the stories that address them
• Future work could add: automated staleness detection, monitoring/alerting integration, incident response runbooks

Trust boundaries to cover (current architecture):

• Browser <-> Caddy (TLS, request routing)
• Caddy <-> Hono application (reverse proxy)
• Hono <-> Git filesystem (spec/submission persistence)
• Hono <-> Claude API (LLM integration)
• GitHub <-> Webhook listener <-> Deploy pipeline
• Browser <-> Hono auth flow (future, Story 2)

Definition of Done alignment:

• Current stories use a minimal DoD; Flexion’s standard template includes items like threat model review, user documentation, deployment changes, and feature toggles
• This story updates all existing stories to use the aligned DoD template
• Not all items may apply to every story (e.g., feature toggles may not be relevant to this project), so adapt the template to project context

Definition of Done:

• Acceptance criteria met
• Threat model updated – any new trust boundaries, data flows, or attack surfaces are reflected in catalog/architecture/threat-model.md
• Technical documentation updated – architecture docs and decisions are current
• Threat model document reviewed for completeness against current architecture
• Claude skill tested against a sample branch diff
• All existing story definitions of done updated
• Tests pass
• Type checking passes
• CI pipeline green
• Deployed and demoable