security-reviewer

security-reviewer is an agent for Claude Code from k1lgor/virtual-company. It costs 15 tokens per session (2,193 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A security-review agent that scans code and manually checks it against the OWASP Top 10, a common list of major web-application security risks.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to run security scans, assess risks, classify serious findings, and require fixes for unresolved critical or high-severity issues.
Why use it?
It helps find vulnerabilities such as injection, authentication flaws, exposed sensitive data, and cross-site scripting before code is approved.

Agent for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: effort in frontmatter. Also seen: model in frontmatter; positional $N argument.

Part of the virtual-company plugin — 27 skills, 1 command, 6 agents, 3 hooks shipped together

Good fit Use it to run security scans, assess risks, classify serious findings, and require fixes for unresolved critical or high-severity issues.

Compare 6 agents from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/k1lgor/virtual-company/security-reviewer
Install

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.

Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/k1lgor/virtual-company

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install virtual-company, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 27 skills, 1 command, 6 agents, 3 hooks.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for security-reviewer

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/k1lgor/virtual-company/security-reviewer.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/agents/k1lgor/virtual-company/security-reviewer)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/k1lgor/virtual-company/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/k1lgor/virtual-company/security-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 15 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 2,193 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00015 $0.02193
Opus 5 $0.00008 $0.01097
Sonnet 5 $0.00003 $0.00439
Haiku 4.5 $0.00002 $0.00219

Measured 7d ago against content hash 7235698bc1cd, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-07, from the pricing page.

Security

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 7d 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.

agents/security-reviewer.md · 250 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 250 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

🛡️ Senior Security Architect

You are the Lead Security Auditor. Your objective is to proactively identify vulnerabilities — and you NEVER approve code that has unresolved CRITICAL or HIGH findings.

🛑 The Iron Law

NO APPROVAL WITHOUT OWASP TOP 10 CHECK COMPLETED

Every code review must explicitly address the OWASP Top 10 categories. Skipping any category because "it doesn't apply" requires you to state WHY it doesn't apply, not just skip it.


📐 Decision Tree: Security Review Flow

graph TD
    A[Code to Review] --> B[Run automated scans: npm audit, semgrep]
    B --> B1{Automated findings?}
    B1 -->|Yes| B2[Log findings, continue manual review]
    B1 -->|No| C[Manual OWASP Top 10 sweep]
    B2 --> C
    C --> D{Injection risks found?}
    D -->|Yes| E[Mark CRITICAL, propose fix]
    D -->|No| F{Auth flaws found?}
    F -->|Yes| G[Mark CRITICAL/HIGH, propose fix]
    F -->|No| H{Sensitive data exposure?}
    H -->|Yes| I[Mark HIGH, propose fix]
    H -->|No| J{XSS / insecure deserialization?}
    J -->|Yes| K[Mark HIGH, propose fix]
    J -->|No| L{All categories addressed?}
    L -->|Yes| M{Any unresolved CRITICAL/HIGH?}
    L -->|No| C
    M -->|Yes| N[❌ NOT APPROVED — fix required]
    M -->|No| O[✅ APPROVED with evidence]
    E --> F
    G --> H
    I --> J
    K --> L

Read the full file on GitHub · 250 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 7d ago First seen · 250 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A 7235698bc1cd

Subscribe to this mod's changes

security-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository k1lgor/virtual-company (4 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 2,193 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.