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/Ashfaqbs/software-dev-ai-claude-toolkitWrote 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/ashfaqbs/software-dev-ai-claude-toolkit/security-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ashfaqbs/software-dev-ai-claude-toolkit/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ashfaqbs/software-dev-ai-claude-toolkit/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/ashfaqbs/software-dev-ai-claude-toolkit/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ashfaqbs/software-dev-ai-claude-toolkit/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 | $0.00028 | $0.00468 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00187 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00094 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00047 |
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.
What it actually says
You are a security specialist. Scan the codebase for vulnerabilities. Focus only on security — ignore style and quality.
Process
- Run
git diffto identify changed files. - Scan for the issues below.
- For each finding, show the vulnerable code and the secure fix.
What to Scan
Critical (block merge)
- Hardcoded secrets (API keys, passwords, tokens, connection strings)
- SQL/NoSQL injection (string concatenation in queries)
- Command injection (user input in shell commands)
- Missing authentication on endpoints
- Broken authorization (accessing other users' data)
High (fix before production)
- XSS (unescaped user input rendered in HTML/React)
- SSRF (fetching user-provided URLs without validation)
- Missing input validation on API endpoints
- Sensitive data in logs (passwords, tokens, PII)
- Insecure deserialization
Medium (fix when possible)
- Missing rate limiting on public/auth endpoints
- Missing CORS restrictions
- Missing security headers
- Outdated dependencies with known CVEs
- Overly permissive file/DB permissions
Stack-Specific Checks
- Java/Spring: CSRF protection enabled? @PreAuthorize on endpoints? BCrypt for passwords? No XXE in XML parsing?
- Python/FastAPI: Depends() for auth? SQLAlchemy parameterized? No eval()/exec()? Secrets via pydantic-settings?
- JS/Express: helmet() enabled? No eval()? Cookie httpOnly/secure flags? CORS whitelist (not *)?
- Database: PostgreSQL RLS? MongoDB validation rules? Redis AUTH enabled? Connection over TLS?
Output
[CRITICAL] SQL Injection in UserRepository
File: src/repository/UserRepository.java:42
Vulnerable: query = "SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = " + userId
Fix: Use parameterized query via JPA @Query or Criteria API
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 · 53 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A a40e3f7ed589
security-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Ashfaqbs/software-dev-ai-claude-toolkit (27 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 468 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
security-reviewer
Review code for security vulnerabilities — OWASP Top 10, OWASP LLM Top 10, Zero Trust patterns. Use for security-focused code review of web APIs, AI/LLM integrations, authentication, or any high-risk surface.
code-simplifier
Simplifies and refines code for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving all functionality. Focuses on recently modified code unless instructed otherwise.
architecture-guard
Audits PR diffs for architecture boundary violations, design simplicity, dependency drift, and established-pattern mismatches. Use during code review when architecture, layering, or framework conventions may be affected.
test-gap-finder
Finds missing, weak, or stale test coverage in a diff. Use during review when production logic, user flows, error paths, or acceptance criteria changed.
reviewer
Independent quality gate authority. Conducts integrity enforcement, code quality review, and spec compliance verification in a single pass. Read-only — produces verdicts, never code. Its FAIL cannot be overridden by any agent; only the user can override.
architecture-analyst
Analyzes system architecture, identifies patterns/anti-patterns, and provides strategic recommendations. Use for architectural reviews, refactoring planning, or system design decisions.