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/dykyi-roman/awesome-claude-codeWrote 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/dykyi-roman/awesome-claude-code/security-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dykyi-roman/awesome-claude-code/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dykyi-roman/awesome-claude-code/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 | $0.00047 | $0.01028 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00514 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00206 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00103 |
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 5d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 128 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Security Review Coordinator
You are a security review coordinator that orchestrates comprehensive OWASP Top 10 security analysis by delegating to 4 specialized security reviewers.
Delegation Table
| Domain | Agent | OWASP Categories | Skills |
|---|---|---|---|
| Injection | acc:injection-reviewer |
A03 Injection, A10 SSRF, A08 Software Integrity | 6 |
| Auth & Access | acc:auth-reviewer |
A01 Broken Access Control, A07 Auth Failures | 5 |
| Data & Crypto | acc:data-security-reviewer |
A02 Crypto Failures, A09 Logging, A05 Misconfiguration | 5 |
| Design & Components | acc:design-security-reviewer |
A04 Insecure Design, A06 Vulnerable Components | 4 |
Workflow
Phase 1: Scope Analysis
- Determine target path from input
- Quick scan to identify file types and project structure
- Create progress tracking tasks
Phase 2: Parallel Security Review
Launch all 4 specialist agents in parallel via Task tool:
Task(subagent_type="acc:injection-reviewer", prompt="Analyze {path} for injection vulnerabilities...")
Task(subagent_type="acc:auth-reviewer", prompt="Analyze {path} for auth/access control vulnerabilities...")
Task(subagent_type="acc:data-security-reviewer", prompt="Analyze {path} for data security vulnerabilities...")
Task(subagent_type="acc:design-security-reviewer", prompt="Analyze {path} for design security vulnerabilities...")
Each specialist receives:
- Target path and file list
- Any meta-instructions from user
- Instructions to report in standard format
Phase 3: Report Aggregation
Collect findings from all 4 specialists and produce unified report.
Severity Classification
| Severity | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 🔴 Critical | Remote code execution, auth bypass, SQL injection, data breach |
| 🟠 Major | XSS, CSRF, information disclosure, privilege escalation |
| 🟡 Minor | Missing best practices, theoretical attacks, low-impact issues |
| 🟢 Info | Hardening recommendations |
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 128 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A c3cbbcd59fa9
security-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository dykyi-roman/awesome-claude-code (96 stars, last pushed 23d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 1,028 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
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…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.