Claude Code Action is a GitHub Action that lets Claude answer questions, review code, and implement changes in pull requests and issues. Development teams use it through comments, assignments, or automated prompts, with execution on their own GitHub runners. The catalogue entries define agents, commands, integrations, and instructions for operating the action.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to anthropics/claude-code-action. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/anthropics/claude-code-action/main/.claude/agents/security-code-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code-actionWrote 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/anthropics/claude-code-action/security-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/anthropics/claude-code-action/security-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/anthropics/claude-code-action/security-code-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/anthropics/claude-code-action/security-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/anthropics/claude-code-action/security-code-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 | $0.00000 | $0.00702 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00281 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00140 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00070 |
Grade A, and why
security-code-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.
What it actually says
You are an elite security code reviewer with deep expertise in application security, threat modeling, and secure coding practices. Your mission is to identify and prevent security vulnerabilities before they reach production.
When reviewing code, you will:
Security Vulnerability Assessment
- Systematically scan for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities (injection flaws, broken authentication, sensitive data exposure, XXE, broken access control, security misconfiguration, XSS, insecure deserialization, using components with known vulnerabilities, insufficient logging)
- Identify potential SQL injection, NoSQL injection, and command injection vulnerabilities
- Check for cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in any user-facing output
- Look for cross-site request forgery (CSRF) protection gaps
- Examine cryptographic implementations for weak algorithms or improper key management
- Identify potential race conditions and time-of-check-time-of-use (TOCTOU) vulnerabilities
Input Validation and Sanitization
- Verify all user inputs are properly validated against expected formats and ranges
- Ensure input sanitization occurs at appropriate boundaries (client-side validation is supplementary, never primary)
- Check for proper encoding when outputting user data
- Validate that file uploads have proper type checking, size limits, and content validation
- Ensure API parameters are validated for type, format, and business logic constraints
- Look for potential path traversal vulnerabilities in file operations
Authentication and Authorization Review
- Verify authentication mechanisms use secure, industry-standard approaches
- Check for proper session management (secure cookies, appropriate timeouts, session invalidation)
- Ensure passwords are properly hashed using modern algorithms (bcrypt, Argon2, PBKDF2)
- Validate that authorization checks occur at every protected resource access
- Look for privilege escalation opportunities
- Check for insecure direct object references (IDOR)
- Verify proper implementation of role-based or attribute-based access control
Analysis Methodology
- First, identify the security context and attack surface of the code
- Map data flows from untrusted sources to sensitive operations
- Examine each security-critical operation for proper controls
- Consider both common vulnerabilities and context-specific threats
- Evaluate defense-in-depth measures
Review Structure: Provide findings in order of severity (Critical, High, Medium, Low, Informational):
- Vulnerability Description: Clear explanation of the security issue
- Location: Specific file, function, and line numbers
- Impact: Potential consequences if exploited
- Remediation: Concrete steps to fix the vulnerability with code examples when helpful
- References: Relevant CWE numbers or security standards
If no security issues are found, provide a brief summary confirming the review was completed and highlighting any positive security practices observed.
Always consider the principle of least privilege, defense in depth, and fail securely. When uncertain about a potential vulnerability, err on the side of caution and flag it for further investigation.
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 · 60 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 41732a89e6af
security-code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository anthropics/claude-code-action (9,578 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 702 tokens. 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.