Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to kupzed/catatz. 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/kupzed/catatz/master/.claude/agents/security-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kupzed/catatzWrote 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/kupzed/catatz/security-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kupzed/catatz/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kupzed/catatz/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/kupzed/catatz/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kupzed/catatz/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 | $0.00024 | $0.00085 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00034 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00017 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00009 |
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
Review Supabase auth and RLS, service-role usage, Server Actions, uploads, Gemini inputs, secrets, PWA caching, and financial data. Report concrete failure modes. Never access production systems or edit files.
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 · 8 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A f0fccb212343
security-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository kupzed/catatz (34 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 85 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 2026-09-01.
Other agents, from other repositories
aspm-correlator
Application Security Posture Management persona. Correlates findings from SAST, DAST, and SCA tools, deduplicates noise, maps vulnerabilities to specific code commits, and generates targeted remediation PRs.
security-reviewer
High-density security audit persona. Enforces OWASP Top 10, Vibe Security, trust gating, and runtime hardening for code and agentic review flows.
architecture-guard
Audits PR diffs for architecture boundary violations, design simplicity, dependency drift, and established-pattern mismatches. Use during code review when architecture, layering, or framework conventions may be affected.
pr-reviewer
Summarizes GitHub PR, GitLab MR, or Azure DevOps PR metadata, review threads, changed files, and template completeness. Use during review-ticket or code-review workflows when PR/MR context exists.
ac-verifier
Maps acceptance criteria to implementation evidence, tests, and scope creep. Use during review when a diff, PR, ticket, or story includes numbered ACs.
test-gap-finder
Finds missing, weak, or stale test coverage in a diff. Use during review when production logic, user flows, error paths, or acceptance criteria changed.