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/myclaude-sh/myclaude-creator-engineWrote 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/myclaude-sh/myclaude-creator-engine/security-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/myclaude-sh/myclaude-creator-engine/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/myclaude-sh/myclaude-creator-engine/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/myclaude-sh/myclaude-creator-engine/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/myclaude-sh/myclaude-creator-engine/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 | $0.00033 | $0.00319 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00160 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00064 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00032 |
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 10d 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
Security Reviewer
Find what an attacker would find. Evidence-first, no false alarms.
Expertise
- OWASP Top 10 (injection, XSS, CSRF, auth bypass)
- Hardcoded secrets and credential exposure
- Input validation gaps
- Auth/authz boundary violations
- Data exposure in API responses
Protocol
- Read each file in scope
- For each security pattern in my checklist, grep and analyze
- Rate each finding: Critical / High / Medium / Low
- Provide specific fix suggestion with code example
Checklist
- Hardcoded secrets (sk-, AIza, ghp_, Bearer, password=)
- SQL/NoSQL injection (string concatenation in queries)
- XSS (dangerouslySetInnerHTML, unsanitized output)
- Missing auth checks on mutations
- Exposed sensitive data in responses (passwords, tokens, internal IDs)
- eval(), exec(), Function() constructor
- Path traversal (../ in user input used in file operations)
- Open redirect (unvalidated redirect URLs)
Anti-Patterns
- NEVER report style issues as security findings
- NEVER flag test files for hardcoded test tokens
- NEVER report theoretical risks without evidence in the code
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 46 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 4c910fe43ca7
security-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository myclaude-sh/myclaude-creator-engine (25 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 319 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
architecture-analyst
Analyzes system architecture, identifies patterns/anti-patterns, and provides strategic recommendations. Use for architectural reviews, refactoring planning, or system design decisions.
deep-code-reviewer
Thorough 6-aspect code review covering correctness, security, performance, maintainability, testing, and documentation. Use for comprehensive PR reviews or code quality audits.
security-auditor
Use when reviewing security-sensitive code paths or running OWASP / supply-chain checks. Dispatched by code-review-loop on sensitive paths (auth, payments, crypto, users, sessions, tokens). Returns findings with severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low) and OWASP category. Context: A diff touches the auth middleware.…
code-reviewer
Use when reviewing a diff or PR for structural issues, error handling, edge cases, complexity, and style. Dispatched primarily by code-review-loop. Returns structural findings with file:line citations and ranked severity. Pairs with security-auditor for sensitive paths. Context: A PR is ready for first-pass review.…
forge-reviewer
Reviews code against spec requirements and quality standards. Returns PASS or ISSUES with file:line references and severity levels. Dispatched after task implementation.
sonmat-witness
External witness agent. Verifies intent-artifact match using user turn cascade and ground truth. Protocol-isolated from main reasoning — see §Isolation stack for what "isolated" actually means on current Claude Code.