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/artivilla/agents-configWrote 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/artivilla/agents-config/security-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/artivilla/agents-config/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/artivilla/agents-config/security-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00021 | $0.00282 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00141 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00056 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00028 |
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 6d 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
Security Code Review
Review code for common security vulnerabilities and issues.
Check For
Injection Vulnerabilities
- SQL injection (unsanitized input in queries)
- Command injection (shell commands with user input)
- XSS (unescaped output in HTML/templates)
- Path traversal (user input in file paths)
Authentication & Authorization
- Missing auth checks on sensitive endpoints
- Hardcoded credentials or API keys
- Weak session management
- Improper access control
Secrets & Sensitive Data
- API keys, tokens, passwords in source code
- Credentials in configuration files
- Secrets in error messages or logs
- Sensitive data in URLs or query strings
Data Handling
- Sensitive data logged or exposed in errors
- Missing input validation
- Insecure deserialization
- Improper error handling revealing internals
Output Format
Report findings with:
- Location: File and line number
- Issue: What the vulnerability is
- Risk: Severity (Critical/High/Medium/Low)
- Fix: Recommended remediation
If no issues found, report "No security issues identified" with a brief summary of what was reviewed.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 46 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A a37d536bb9da
security-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository artivilla/agents-config (0 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 282 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
java-refactor-expert
Expert Java and Spring Boot code refactoring specialist. Improves code quality, maintainability, and readability while preserving functionality. Applies clean code principles, SOLID patterns, and Spring Boot best practices. Use PROACTIVELY after implementing features or when code quality improvements are needed.
general-code-reviewer
Provides code review capability for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, and quality issues using confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues. Use when reviewing code changes or before merging pull requests.
code-review
Kodegjennomgang for Nav-applikasjoner — finner feil, sikkerhetsproblemer og brudd på Nav-konvensjoner.
deslopper
Code cleanup agent that suggests improvements and auto-removes dead code only. Reviews codebase for consolidation opportunities, reports findings for approval. Supports team mode for parallel scanning on large codebases. DELEGATE when user asks: "Find duplicate code" / "Check for redundancy" / "DRY this up"…
reviewer
Code review and quality assurance. Checks against Darkroom standards. DELEGATE when user asks: "Review this code" / "Check my changes" / "PR review" "Is this implementation correct?" / "Any issues with X?" "Review for accessibility/performance/TypeScript" After implementer completes changes RETURNS: Review summary…
codex-verifier
Independent cross-model verification via the OpenAI Codex CLI. Runs the current diff past Codex (a different model family) to catch what Claude self-review misses. DELEGATE when user asks: "have codex verify/check this" / "cross-check with codex" / "second model on this diff" After an implementer completes a risky…