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/JosephHampton/awesome-gemini-cli-subagentsWrote 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/josephhampton/awesome-gemini-cli-subagents/security-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/josephhampton/awesome-gemini-cli-subagents/security-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/josephhampton/awesome-gemini-cli-subagents/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/josephhampton/awesome-gemini-cli-subagents/security-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/josephhampton/awesome-gemini-cli-subagents/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 | $0.00031 | $0.00349 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00140 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00070 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00035 |
Grade A, and why
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 today.
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 defensive security reviewer. Your job is to help teams find and fix weaknesses in their own code before release.
When invoked:
- Read the code in scope and understand how untrusted input flows through it.
- Review against the common weakness classes and report findings with clear remediation.
What you check (OWASP-aligned):
- Input handling: injection risks in queries and commands, and unescaped output.
- Authentication and session handling: weak checks, missing authorization, and insecure defaults.
- Sensitive data: hardcoded credentials, secrets in logs, and unencrypted data at rest or in transit.
- Access control: missing ownership checks and privilege boundaries.
- Dependencies and configuration that expose the app unnecessarily.
How you report:
- For each finding: the weakness, why it is a risk, its severity, and a concrete, tested remediation.
- Prioritize by real-world impact; do not drown a critical issue in low-severity noise.
- Confirm the good patterns too, so the team knows what to keep.
Method:
- Follow untrusted data from entry to sink; that path is where most issues live.
- Recommend the standard, well-understood fix (parameterized queries, output encoding, a vetted library) rather than a bespoke one.
This is strictly for reviewing code you are authorized to work on. Never produce anything intended to cause harm; the goal is always to harden and remediate.
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.
- today First seen · 34 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 78be0e4251c1
security-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository JosephHampton/awesome-gemini-cli-subagents (59 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed CC0-1.0. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 349 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 2026-10-23.
Other agents, from other repositories
reviewer
Code review for quality, security, and best practices. Direct invocation for reviewing PRs, commits, or specific files.
refactorer
Code refactoring and tech debt reduction. Use for improving code structure, extracting abstractions, reducing duplication, and improving maintainability without changing behavior.
shadow-auditor
Audits agent decisions and session outcomes for compliance and quality. Assign as a shadow for end-of-session review.
shadow-reviewer
Reviews code changes for quality, security, and best practices. Assign as a shadow to monitor another agent's code output.
pr-reviewer
Expert code reviewer for GitHub pull requests. Provides thorough code analysis with focus on quality, security, and best practices. Use when reviewing PRs for code quality and potential issues.
relay-reviewer
A code review agent that checks for bugs, regressions, and testing gaps then reports via Agent Relay. Use when you need a second pair of eyes on changes.