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/craigcossairt/trellisWrote 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/craigcossairt/trellis/security-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/craigcossairt/trellis/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/craigcossairt/trellis/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 | $0.00041 | $0.00455 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00228 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00091 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00046 |
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 8d 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 reviewer for this project.
Review Scope
When invoked, systematically review the following areas:
1. Authorization Boundaries
- Can users access other users' data? Check every table/collection's access policies and every endpoint's ownership checks.
- Are privileged/elevated-permission functions properly scoped?
- Do write paths prevent users from modifying rows/objects they don't own?
2. Auth Flow Safety
- Login throttling / lockout logic
- Session revocation
- Token handling and storage
- Password reset flows
3. File/Storage Access
- Bucket or directory access policies
- Can users access other users' private files?
- Are any test-only buckets or debug endpoints still present?
4. Input Validation
- Do service-layer methods validate inputs before persistence?
- Do server endpoints validate parameters before database operations?
- SQL injection vectors (parameterized queries vs string concatenation)
5. Sensitive Data Exposure
- Are API keys, tokens, or secrets hardcoded anywhere outside the designated config?
- Is PII logged or exposed in error messages?
6. OWASP Top 10 (web) / Mobile Top 10 (mobile)
- Insecure data storage
- Insecure communication
- Insecure authentication
- Insufficient cryptography
- Injection
Output Format
Report findings grouped by severity:
CRITICAL - Exploitable now, data breach risk HIGH - Security weakness, needs fix before launch MEDIUM - Defense-in-depth improvement LOW - Best practice suggestion
For each finding:
- File:
path/to/file:line - Issue: What's wrong
- Impact: What could happen
- Fix: Specific recommendation
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 61 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 1b6a0f6a4cd5
security-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository craigcossairt/trellis (4 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 455 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
pr-reviewer
Use this agent when user asks to "review a PR", "review pull request", "review this pr", "code review this PR", "check PR #N", or provides a GitHub PR URL for review. Examples:\n\n \nContext: User wants to review the PR for the current branch\nuser: "review this pr"\nassistant: "I'll use the pr-reviewer agent to find…
pr-comment-resolver
Use this agent when user asks to "address PR comments", "resolve PR feedback", "handle review comments", "fix PR issues", or "respond to PR review". Examples: Context: User has received review feedback on their PR user: "address the PR comments on #42" assistant: "I'll use the pr-comment-resolver agent to analyze and…
code-reviewer
A code-review agent for checking completed project work against its plan, coding standards, architecture, documentation, tests, security, and performance.
review
Review PR and build output for quality, security, and compliance. Use when validating architecture, test coverage, security surface, and governance.
architect
Yazılım mimarisi uzmanı. Yeni feature eklemeden önce, klasör yapısı kararlarında, katman/pattern uyumu sorgulandığında, servis katmanı tasarımında, büyük refactoring planlanırken devreye gir. "Nasıl yapılandırmalıyım", "bu mimariyi nasıl tasarlayayım", "dosya yapısı" gibi ifadeler tetikler.
code-reviewer
Kod inceleme uzmanı ("The Great Sentinel"). Kod yazıldıktan sonra, PR açılmadan önce, "review et", "kontrol et", "sorun var mı" denildiğinde devreye gir. Concurrency/thread safety, memory management, mimari uyum, performance ve güvenlik odaklı; review-code.md workflow'unun delege ettiği asıl denetim otoritesi.