building-role-mining-for-rbac-optimization skill
Apply bottom-up and top-down role mining techniques, including clustering
Is the building-role-mining-for-rbac-optimization skill safe?
Clean: nothing in its files matched our rules. We read 8 files in the folder on 2026-09-28.
No findings.
Install the building-role-mining-for-rbac-optimization skill
A skill is a folder. Copy it into your agent's skills folder and the agent loads it when the task matches its description.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills.git /tmp/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills cp -r /tmp/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills/skills/building-role-mining-for-rbac-optimization ~/.claude/skills/building-role-mining-for-rbac-optimization
In the Claude apps, zip the folder and upload it from the Skills settings. The folder on GitHub
The instructions your agent would load
SKILL.md as published, without the frontmatter. Read it on GitHub
Building Role Mining for RBAC Optimization
Overview
Role mining is the process of analyzing existing user-permission assignments to discover optimal roles for a Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) system. Organizations accumulate excessive permissions over time through job changes, project assignments, and ad-hoc access grants, leading to "role explosion" where thousands of granular roles exist with significant overlap. Role mining uses data analysis -- including clustering algorithms, formal concept analysis, and graph-based methods -- to consolidate permissions into a minimal set of roles that accurately represent business functions while enforcing least privilege.
When to Use
- When deploying or configuring building role mining for rbac optimization capabilities in your environment
- When establishing security controls aligned to compliance requirements
- When building or improving security architecture for this domain
- When conducting security assessments that require this implementation
Prerequisites
- Export of current user-permission assignments (CSV/database)
- Identity governance platform or directory service access
- Python 3.9+ with pandas, scikit-learn, numpy
- Understanding of organizational structure and job functions
- Stakeholder access for role validation workshops
Core Concepts
Role Mining Approaches
Role Mining Algorithms
1. Permission Clustering: Group users with similar permission sets using k-means or hierarchical clustering. Users in the same cluster share a common role.
2. Formal Concept Analysis (FCA): Mathematical framework that identifies complete set of concepts (user groups sharing exact permission sets) from a binary user-permission matrix.
3. Graph-Based Mining: Model users and permissions as a bipartite graph, then find dense subgraphs representing candidate roles.
4. Boolean Matrix Decomposition: Decompose the user-permission matrix U into U ≈ R × P where R maps users to roles and P maps roles to permissions.
Role Mining Metrics
Workflow
Step 1: Extract User-Permission Data
Collect the current access state from all identity sources:
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
# Load user-permission assignments
# Format: user_id, permission_id (one row per assignment)
assignments = pd.read_csv("user_permissions.csv")
# Create binary user-permission matrix (UPA matrix)
upa_matrix = assignments.pivot_table(
index="user_id",
columns="permission_id",
aggfunc="size",
fill_value=0
)
upa_matrix = (upa_matrix > 0).astype(int)
print(f"Users: {upa_matrix.shape[0]}")
print(f"Permissions: {upa_matrix.shape[1]}")
print(f"Assignments: {assignments.shape[0]}")
print(f"Density: {upa_matrix.values.sum() / upa_matrix.size:.2%}")Step 2: Bottom-Up Role Discovery Using Clustering
from sklearn.cluster import AgglomerativeClustering
from sklearn.metrics import silhouette_score
def find_optimal_clusters(matrix, max_k=50):
"""Find optimal number of roles using silhouette analysis."""
scores = []
for k in range(2, min(max_k, matrix.shape[0])):
clustering = AgglomerativeClustering(
n_clusters=k, metric="jaccard", linkage="average"
)
labels = clustering.fit_predict(matrix)
score = silhouette_score(matrix, labels, metric="jaccard")
scores.append((k, score))
optimal_k = max(scores, key=lambda x: x[1])[0]
return optimal_k, scores
def mine_roles_clustering(upa_matrix, n_clusters):
"""Mine roles using hierarchical clustering on Jaccard distance."""
clustering = AgglomerativeClustering(
n_clusters=n_clusters, metric="jaccard", linkage="average"
)
user_matrix = upa_matrix.values
labels = clustering.fit_predict(user_matrix)
roles = {}
for cluster_id in range(n_clusters):
cluster_users = upa_matrix.index[labels == cluster_id]
cluster_permissions = upa_matrix.loc[cluster_users]
# Core role = permissions held by >80% of cluster members
Step 3: Formal Concept Analysis
def mine_roles_fca(upa_matrix, min_support=3):
"""Mine roles using Formal Concept Analysis (frequent closed itemsets)."""
from itertools import combinations
users = upa_matrix.index.tolist()
permissions = upa_matrix.columns.tolist()
concepts = []
# Find all maximal permission sets shared by at least min_support users
for size in range(len(permissions), 0, -1):
for perm_combo in combinations(permissions, size):
perm_set = set(perm_combo)
# Find users who have ALL permissions in this set
matching_users = []
for user in users:
user_perms = set(upa_matrix.columns[upa_matrix.loc[user] == 1])
if perm_set.issubset(user_perms):
matching_users.append(user)
if len(matching_users) >= min_support:
# Check if this is a closed concept (no superset with same extent)
is_closed = True
for concept in concepts:
if set(matching_users) == set(concept["users"]) and \
perm_set.issubset(set(concept["permissions"])):
is_closed = False
Step 4: Evaluate and Select Roles
def evaluate_role_set(roles, upa_matrix):
"""Evaluate the quality of a mined role set."""
total_assignments = upa_matrix.values.sum()
covered_assignments = 0
extra_assignments = 0
for role_name, role_data in roles.items():
role_perms = set(role_data["permissions"])
for user in role_data["users"]:
user_perms = set(upa_matrix.columns[upa_matrix.loc[user] == 1])
covered = role_perms.intersection(user_perms)
extra = role_perms - user_perms
covered_assignments += len(covered)
extra_assignments += len(extra)
metrics = {
"total_roles": len(roles),
"total_assignments": total_assignments,
"covered_assignments": covered_assignments,
"coverage_rate": covered_assignments / total_assignments if total_assignments else 0,
"extra_permissions": extra_assignments,
"deviation_rate": extra_assignments / (covered_assignments + extra_assignments) if (covered_assignments + extra_assignments) else 0,
"avg_role_size": np.mean([len(r["permissions"]) for r in roles.values()]),
"avg_users_per_role": np.mean([r["user_count"] for r in roles.values(Step 5: Business Validation
After mining candidate roles:
- Map mined roles to business functions (department, job title)
- Conduct workshops with business unit managers to validate role definitions
- Identify outlier permissions that indicate misconfiguration
- Refine roles based on feedback and re-evaluate metrics
- Document role definitions with business justification
Validation Checklist
- [ ] User-permission matrix extracted from all identity sources
- [ ] Multiple mining algorithms compared (clustering, FCA)
- [ ] Optimal role count determined via silhouette analysis or WSC
- [ ] Coverage rate exceeds 95% of existing assignments
- [ ] Deviation rate below 5% (minimal extra permissions)
- [ ] Mined roles validated with business stakeholders
- [ ] Role hierarchy defined (parent-child inheritance)
- [ ] Exception/outlier permissions documented
- [ ] Migration plan created for transitioning to new role model
- [ ] Ongoing role governance process defined
References
- Role Mining: Optimizing RBAC - NIST
- RBAC Standard - ANSI/INCITS 359-2012
- Formal Concept Analysis for Role Engineering
- scikit-learn Clustering Documentation
More skills from mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills
- Aabusing-dpapi-for-credential-accessExtract and decrypt Windows DPAPI-protected secrets (Credential Manager, browser logins/cookies, Wi-Fi credentials, KeePass keys) online or offline using SharpDPAPI, SharpChrome, Mimikatz, or Impacket's dpapi.py, including domain-wide decryption via the DPAPI backup key. Use during authorized red-team credential-access engagements after gaining a foothold or when triaging DPAPI blobs pulled from a host.
- Aabusing-shadow-credentials-for-privescTake over Active Directory accounts by writing attacker-controlled public keys to msDS-KeyCredentialLink (Shadow Credentials) with pyWhisker, Whisker, or Certipy, then authenticate via PKINIT to recover the target's NT hash without a password reset. Use when BloodHound shows GenericWrite/GenericAll/AddKeyCredentialLink over a target, as a stealthier alternative to ForceChangePassword, during authorized red-team engagements.
- Aachieving-cmmc-level-2-compliancePrepare a defense-contractor environment for CMMC Level 2 certification: scope CUI and FCI, implement the 110 NIST SP 800-171 Rev 2 security requirements across 14 families, compute the SPRS score with the DoD Assessment Methodology, manage a compliant POA&M, and ready the organization for a C3PAO assessment. Use when an organization handles Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) under a DoD contract, when a contract carries DFARS clause 252.204-7012/7019/7020/7021, when preparing for or responding to a CMMC assessment, when computing or improving an SPRS score, when building a System Security Plan or POA&M for 800-171, or when scoping which systems are in the CUI boundary. Keywords: CMMC, CMMC Level 2, NIST 800-171, SP 800-171 Rev 2, CUI, FCI, SPRS, DFARS 7012, C3PAO, POA&M, System Security Plan, DoD Assessment Methodology, 110 controls, defense industrial base, DIB, FedRAMP equivalency.
- Aacquiring-disk-image-with-dd-and-dcflddCreate forensically sound bit-for-bit disk images with dd or dcfldd on a Linux forensic workstation, preserving evidence integrity through hash verification (MD5/SHA) during acquisition. Use when imaging a suspect drive, USB device, or memory card for investigation, preserving volatile disk evidence during incident response, or producing a verified copy for legal or law-enforcement proceedings before any destructive analysis.
- Aanalyzing-active-directory-acl-abuseDetect dangerous ACL misconfigurations in Active Directory using ldap3
- Aanalyzing-android-malware-with-apktoolPerform static analysis of Android APK malware using apktool for resource decompilation, jadx for Java source recovery, and androguard for manifest inspection, dangerous permission-combination detection, and identification of obfuscated code, dynamic code loading, and reflection-based API calls. Use to statically triage a suspicious APK without executing it or to build mobile malware detection rules.
- Danalyzing-api-gateway-access-logs'Parses API Gateway access logs (AWS API Gateway, Kong, Nginx) to detect
- Aanalyzing-apt-group-with-mitre-navigatorQuery ATT&CK data with attackcti, mitreattack-python, and stix2, then build MITRE ATT&CK Navigator layers and multi-layer heatmap overlays mapping one or more APT groups' TTPs for detection-gap analysis. Use to compare threat-actor technique coverage, find gaps in detection engineering, or produce Navigator visualizations for threat-intel reporting.
- Aanalyzing-azure-activity-logs-for-threats'Queries Azure Monitor activity logs and sign-in logs via azure-monitor-query
- Aanalyzing-bootkit-and-rootkit-samples'Analyzes bootkit and advanced rootkit malware infecting the Master
- Aanalyzing-browser-forensics-with-hindsightParse Chromium-based browser databases with Hindsight to extract and correlate browsing history, downloads, cookies, cached content, autofill data, saved passwords, and extensions from Chrome, Edge, Brave, Opera, and Vivaldi into a unified timeline (XLSX, JSON, or SQLite output). Use during incident response, insider-threat investigations, or criminal cases when you need to reconstruct a user's web activity from a browser profile.
- Aanalyzing-campaign-attribution-evidenceSystematically evaluate cyber-campaign evidence to attribute an operation to a threat actor, using the Diamond Model and Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) to weigh infrastructure overlaps, TTP consistency, malware code similarity, and timing/language artifacts into confidence-weighted attribution assessments. Use when an incident investigation needs a defensible attribution confidence level.