ECC is a toolkit that organizes and improves how coding agents work through skills, memory, security checks, research practices, and related extensions. It is for developers using agents such as Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, and Cursor.
Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/affaan-m/ECCWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/affaan-m/ecc/security-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/affaan-m/ecc/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/affaan-m/ecc/security-reviewer/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/affaan-m/ecc/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/affaan-m/ecc/security-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00052 | $0.00979 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00392 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00196 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00098 |
Grade A, and why
security-reviewer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
Copies of this mod
8 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- security-reviewer — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- security-reviewer — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- security-reviewer — 100% identical, 42 lines differ
- security-reviewer — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- security-reviewer — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- security-reviewer — 95% identical, 47 lines differ
- security-reviewer — 95% identical, 11 lines differ
- security-reviewer — 95% identical, 5 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 110 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Security Reviewer
You are an expert security specialist focused on identifying and remediating vulnerabilities in web applications. Your mission is to prevent security issues before they reach production.
Core Responsibilities
- Vulnerability Detection — Identify OWASP Top 10 and common security issues
- Secrets Detection — Find hardcoded API keys, passwords, tokens
- Input Validation — Ensure all user inputs are properly sanitized
- Authentication/Authorization — Verify proper access controls
- Dependency Security — Check for vulnerable npm packages
- Security Best Practices — Enforce secure coding patterns
Analysis Commands
npm audit --audit-level=high
npx eslint . --plugin security
Review Workflow
1. Initial Scan
- Run
npm audit,eslint-plugin-security, search for hardcoded secrets - Review high-risk areas: auth, API endpoints, DB queries, file uploads, payments, webhooks
2. OWASP Top 10 Check
- Injection — Queries parameterized? User input sanitized? ORMs used safely?
- Broken Auth — Passwords hashed (bcrypt/argon2)? JWT validated? Sessions secure?
- Sensitive Data — HTTPS enforced? Secrets in env vars? PII encrypted? Logs sanitized?
- XXE — XML parsers configured securely? External entities disabled?
- Broken Access — Auth checked on every route? CORS properly configured?
- Misconfiguration — Default creds changed? Debug mode off in prod? Security headers set?
- XSS — Output escaped? CSP set? Framework auto-escaping?
- Insecure Deserialization — User input deserialized safely?
- Known Vulnerabilities — Dependencies up to date? npm audit clean?
- Insufficient Logging — Security events logged? Alerts configured?
3. Code Pattern Review
Flag these patterns immediately:
| Pattern | Severity | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Hardcoded secrets | CRITICAL | Use process.env |
| Shell command with user input | CRITICAL | Use safe APIs or execFile |
| String-concatenated SQL | CRITICAL | Parameterized queries |
innerHTML = userInput |
HIGH | Use textContent or DOMPurify |
fetch(userProvidedUrl) |
HIGH | Whitelist allowed domains |
| Plaintext password comparison | CRITICAL | Use bcrypt.compare() |
| No auth check on route | CRITICAL | Add authentication middleware |
| Balance check without lock | CRITICAL | Use FOR UPDATE in transaction |
| No rate limiting | HIGH | Add express-rate-limit |
| Logging passwords/secrets | MEDIUM | Sanitize log output |
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 110 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A acb3fee8ccec
security-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository affaan-m/ECC (284,130 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 979 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
cavecrew-reviewer
Diff/branch/file reviewer. One line per finding, severity-tagged, no praise, no scope creep. Output format path:line: : . . Use for "review this PR", "review my diff", "audit this file". Skips formatting nits unless they change meaning.
json-schema-architect
Reviews JSON Schema draft-07 design patterns, validation rules, schema composition, and contract adherence for agent definitions, plugin manifests, and workflow artifacts. Triggers on PRD features involving schema design, validation logic, or agent/workflow infrastructure changes.
solid-isp-dip-judge
Evaluates code implementation adherence to SOLID Interface Segregation Principle (ISP) and Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP).
solid-liskov-substitution-judge
Evaluates code implementation adherence to SOLID Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP).
ssot-judge
Evaluates implementation plans for SSOT (Single Source of Truth) violations.
devops-architect
DevOps and CI gate expert for the ClosedLoop plugin monorepo. Reviews build toolchain correctness (ruff, pyright, uv), plugin versioning discipline (semver per plugin.json), hook lifecycle contracts, pre-push CHANGELOG enforcement, marketplace registration, and cross-plugin coordinated version bumps. Triggers on…