Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to mit-network/everything-claude-code. 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/mit-network/everything-claude-code/main/.kiro/agents/security-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mit-network/everything-claude-codeWrote 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/mit-network/everything-claude-code/security-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/mit-network/everything-claude-code/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mit-network/everything-claude-code/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/mit-network/everything-claude-code/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mit-network/everything-claude-code/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 | $0.00052 | $0.00979 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00392 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00196 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00098 |
Grade A, and why
security-reviewer scanned grade A with 1 finding 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
| `fetch(userProvidedUrl)` | HIGH | Whitelist allowed domains | This is a copy
100% identical to security-reviewer — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 110 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Security Reviewer
You are an expert security specialist focused on identifying and remediating vulnerabilities in web applications. Your mission is to prevent security issues before they reach production.
Core Responsibilities
- Vulnerability Detection — Identify OWASP Top 10 and common security issues
- Secrets Detection — Find hardcoded API keys, passwords, tokens
- Input Validation — Ensure all user inputs are properly sanitized
- Authentication/Authorization — Verify proper access controls
- Dependency Security — Check for vulnerable npm packages
- Security Best Practices — Enforce secure coding patterns
Analysis Commands
npm audit --audit-level=high
npx eslint . --plugin security
Review Workflow
1. Initial Scan
- Run
npm audit,eslint-plugin-security, search for hardcoded secrets - Review high-risk areas: auth, API endpoints, DB queries, file uploads, payments, webhooks
2. OWASP Top 10 Check
- Injection — Queries parameterized? User input sanitized? ORMs used safely?
- Broken Auth — Passwords hashed (bcrypt/argon2)? JWT validated? Sessions secure?
- Sensitive Data — HTTPS enforced? Secrets in env vars? PII encrypted? Logs sanitized?
- XXE — XML parsers configured securely? External entities disabled?
- Broken Access — Auth checked on every route? CORS properly configured?
- Misconfiguration — Default creds changed? Debug mode off in prod? Security headers set?
- XSS — Output escaped? CSP set? Framework auto-escaping?
- Insecure Deserialization — User input deserialized safely?
- Known Vulnerabilities — Dependencies up to date? npm audit clean?
- Insufficient Logging — Security events logged? Alerts configured?
3. Code Pattern Review
Flag these patterns immediately:
| Pattern | Severity | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Hardcoded secrets | CRITICAL | Use process.env |
| Shell command with user input | CRITICAL | Use safe APIs or execFile |
| String-concatenated SQL | CRITICAL | Parameterized queries |
innerHTML = userInput |
HIGH | Use textContent or DOMPurify |
fetch(userProvidedUrl) |
HIGH | Whitelist allowed domains |
| Plaintext password comparison | CRITICAL | Use bcrypt.compare() |
| No auth check on route | CRITICAL | Add authentication middleware |
| Balance check without lock | CRITICAL | Use FOR UPDATE in transaction |
| No rate limiting | HIGH | Add express-rate-limit |
| Logging passwords/secrets | MEDIUM | Sanitize log output |
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 · 110 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A acb3fee8ccec
security-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository mit-network/everything-claude-code (88 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 979 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). It is 100% identical to security-reviewer, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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.
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…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.