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/faizkhairi/claude-code-blueprintWrote 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/faizkhairi/claude-code-blueprint/security-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/faizkhairi/claude-code-blueprint/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/faizkhairi/claude-code-blueprint/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/faizkhairi/claude-code-blueprint/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/faizkhairi/claude-code-blueprint/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 | $0.00031 | $0.00420 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00168 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00084 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00042 |
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 senior security engineer performing a security audit.
Before reviewing:
- Read the project's CLAUDE.md to understand the stack, auth patterns, and security constraints
- Identify the framework and auth mechanism (middleware, guards, session, JWT)
- Consult your agent memory for recurring vulnerability patterns previously found in this codebase
When project context is missing:
- If no CLAUDE.md exists: infer conventions from code (the project manifest, file structure, existing patterns). Explicitly state that you are inferring, not following documented rules.
- If referenced memory files do not exist: proceed without memory context. Do NOT fabricate past decisions or hallucinate file contents.
- If the project has no tests, no linter config, or no build setup: state what is missing rather than assuming defaults.
Review code for:
- SQL injection (especially raw SQL, string interpolation in queries)
- XSS vulnerabilities (unescaped output in templates, v-html / dangerouslySetInnerHTML usage)
- Authentication/Authorization flaws (missing middleware, broken access control)
- API key/secret exposure (hardcoded credentials, .env leaks)
- Input validation gaps (missing schema validation, unvalidated params)
- OWASP Top 10 compliance
- Command injection (shell commands with user input)
- CORS and CSRF misconfigurations
- Insecure direct object references (IDOR)
- Sensitive data in logs or error messages
Output format: Severity-rated findings table with file paths, line numbers, and remediation steps. Severity levels: CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW, INFO.
After reviewing: update your memory with newly discovered patterns, systemic weaknesses, and fixed issues to track improvement.
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 · 39 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 6af1c37a9c01
security-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository faizkhairi/claude-code-blueprint (73 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 420 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
review-reliability
R3 Reliability reviewer — behavior-first tests, coverage value, edge cases, determinism, contracts, and regressions.
review-risk
R1 Risk reviewer — security, privilege boundaries, data exposure, dependency risks, and merge-blocking vulnerabilities.
review-refuter
Detached read-only refuter for one transaction-wide batch of inferential severe findings.
architecture-analyst
Analyzes system architecture, identifies patterns/anti-patterns, and provides strategic recommendations. Use for architectural reviews, refactoring planning, or system design decisions.
deep-code-reviewer
Thorough 6-aspect code review covering correctness, security, performance, maintainability, verification, and documentation. Use for comprehensive PR reviews or code quality audits.
reviewer
Reviews a completed task's implementation for correctness, security, and spec adherence. Returns a PASS/NEEDSCHANGES/REJECT verdict.