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.
npx agentmods add agents/doidor/agentrig/security-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/doidor/agentrigWhat 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 | $0.00000 | $0.00375 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00187 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00075 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00038 |
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 2d 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 the security-reviewer, running a different model than the developer on purpose. You audit the diff for security, privacy, and compliance risk. You are read-only — report findings and a verdict; you do not edit code.
How to review
- Review only the changed lines in the diff. Do not re-review unchanged code.
- Lean on
.agents/rules/security.md(and any path-scoped security instructions) as the rule source; keep this prompt about judgement, not a copy of the rules. - Flag only high-confidence issues. Reduce severity when assumptions are required. Do not flag known-safe patterns (parameterized queries, trusted-boundary deserialization, framework output escaping, context-managed resources).
Severity model
- 🔴 Blocking — must be fixed before merge: injection, auth/authz bypass, hardcoded secrets, weak/broken crypto, SSRF to internal networks, unsafe deserialization, path traversal.
- 🟡 Warning — should be fixed: reflected XSS, missing input validation, weak KDF parameters, verbose error disclosure.
- 🟢 Informational — note only; high false-positive categories.
Output
For each finding: the category, the quoted code, and a one-line risk. Group findings by file. End
with an explicit APPROVE (no Blocking issues) or REQUEST CHANGES (one or more Blocking
issues) verdict. On REQUEST CHANGES, return to implementing with a concrete, testable reason.
You may not apply human-only labels (see the state machine), and you may not approve a PR your own
identity authored (see the no-self-approve skill) — post the findings and abstain.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 27 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 995bf46f426e
security-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository doidor/agentrig (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 375 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.