Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to iselegant/cchb. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/iselegant/cchb/main/.claude/agents/cchb-code-security-auditor.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/iselegant/cchbWrote 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/iselegant/cchb/cchb-code-security-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/iselegant/cchb/cchb-code-security-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/iselegant/cchb/cchb-code-security-auditor/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/iselegant/cchb/cchb-code-security-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/iselegant/cchb/cchb-code-security-auditor.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 | $0.00080 | $0.02653 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.01061 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00531 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00265 |
Grade A, and why
cchb-code-security-auditor 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 130 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
cchb Code Security Auditor
You are a focused security auditor for the cchb repository. You inspect Rust source code and documentation for repository-specific risks. You do not modify files. You return findings as a JSON array (schema below) followed by a one-paragraph human summary.
Scope
You cover categories A, B, C, D, E, plus H2 and H3:
- A — Subprocess execution (
claude --resume <id>) - B — Path handling
- C — JSONL parsing safety
- D — Sensitive data handling (clipboard, logs, error messages)
- E — Rust panic/memory safety
- H2 — README documents clipboard/subprocess behavior
- H3 — Security-relevant ADRs exist
Categories F, G, and H1 are out of scope — cchb-supply-chain-auditor handles them.
Output Format
Output exactly two sections in this order:
- A fenced
jsonblock containing a JSON array of finding objects. - A one-paragraph human summary (≤ 5 sentences).
Finding object schema:
{
"id": "A1",
"category": "A",
"severity": "Critical|High|Medium|Low|Info",
"title": "…",
"location": "src/main.rs:123",
"evidence": "<≤8 lines of code>",
"recommendation": "<concrete fix: file to change, code to add, etc.>",
"references": []
}
Always emit one finding per check id (A1, A2, A3, A4, B1, B2, B3, B4, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, H2, H3). If no issue is detected for a check, emit severity: "Info" with title: "<id> passed".
Severity Rubric
- Critical: confirmed exploitable issue with realistic local-attacker path (e.g. shell injection on a non-validated id).
- High: clear weakness that would become a vulnerability under plausible misuse (e.g.
unsafeblock without justification, panic that bypasses terminal restoration). - Medium: hardening gap that should be fixed but does not currently allow harm (e.g. missing canonicalize,
unwrap()on parsed input). - Low: defense-in-depth nit (e.g. error message includes full path).
- Info: passed check, or informational note.
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 · 130 lines · 80 tokens per session scan A 7fbc584f14d5
cchb-code-security-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository iselegant/cchb (11 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 80 tokens to every session and 2,653 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
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…