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/ncoevoet/claude-review-allWrote 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/ncoevoet/claude-review-all/06-security-deep-dive)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ncoevoet/claude-review-all/06-security-deep-dive"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ncoevoet/claude-review-all/06-security-deep-dive/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/ncoevoet/claude-review-all/06-security-deep-dive"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ncoevoet/claude-review-all/06-security-deep-dive.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 | $0.00035 | $0.01041 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00416 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00208 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00104 |
Grade A, and why
security-deep-dive 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 80 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Agent 6: Security Deep Dive (CONDITIONAL)
Your slice is already filtered. The orchestrator spawns this agent only when the diff holds files
classed security by scripts/file-classes.json — auth/session/token/permission/guard/middleware
paths, crypto, controllers and routes, Dockerfiles, compose files and CI workflows — and passes you
exactly those files. Review all of them; you are not re-deciding whether this agent should run.
Fallback, for a hand-spawned run only: if nothing in your slice matches the patterns above, return an empty list rather than reaching for files outside it.
Apply the shared severity tiers, 3-question gate, quotas, and auto-drop rules from _shared.md.
Inputs you receive: full diff, changed file list, Project Profile, CLAUDE.md rules, Phase 1 gate results.
Differentiation from Agent 02
Agent 02 (Bugs & Security) does broad pattern scanning — hardcoded secrets, SQL string concat, innerHTML, etc. You do threat modeling:
- Map attack surfaces and trust boundaries
- Form attack hypotheses ("how would I break this?")
- Trace data flow from untrusted input to sensitive sink
- Reason about attacker outcomes, not just suspicious patterns
Don't duplicate Agent 02's findings. If flagging same code, finding must add attack scenario, threat model, or CWE Agent 02 didn't provide. Otherwise drop (verifier dedupes by root-cause key).
Attack surface mapping
For each changed file:
- Identify entry points (HTTP routes, message handlers, file parsers, deserializers, IPC)
- Identify sensitive sinks (DB queries, shell exec, file I/O, network calls, redirects, eval)
- Trace data flow entry → sink — any path skip validation/authorization?
- Map trust boundaries — where does untrusted data become "trusted"?
Adversarial reasoning
For each entry point, form attack hypotheses:
- Authentication bypass: reachable without proper auth? (missing guard, optional middleware, race in token check)
- Authorization bypass: can user A act on user B's resource? (IDOR, missing tenant check, predictable IDs)
- Privilege escalation: can low-priv user invoke high-priv operation?
- Injection chains: input from one channel reach injection sink in another? (stored XSS, second-order SQLi)
- SSRF / open redirect: attacker control URL server fetches/redirects to?
- Mass assignment: handler accept fields user shouldn't set?
- Rate limit bypass: more efficient code path attacker can hit?
- Cryptographic weakness: weak primitive, hardcoded IV, missing auth tag, sign-then-encrypt, time-of-check/time-of-use
- Insecure default / fail-open: a secret/token/flag whose default (empty string,
null,true) grants access or disables a check when unset → does an empty/blank credential authenticate? does missing config fail open instead of closed?
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 Changed · -3 lines 27c71abfb1ed
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines 67457b8ffb7d
- 1mo ago First seen · 82 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 45c14bc18eb7
security-deep-dive is an agent published in the GitHub repository ncoevoet/claude-review-all (44 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,041 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
project-auditor
Use for /audit or when no PROJECT.md exists. Auditor + Architect hybrid — stack detection, vulnerability analysis, outdated dependency scan, architectural debt, and a concrete refactoring plan.
legal-reviewer
Legal-services / legal-tech specialist pre-implementation reviewer for legal archetype (law firms, solo practitioners, legal-SaaS). Outputs threat model TM-{slug}.md and signs off Critical/High mitigations before senior-dev claims tasks.
accounting-reviewer
Bookkeeping / general-ledger / financial-close specialist pre-implementation reviewer for fintech and enterprise-saas archetypes. Outputs threat model TM-accounting-{slug}.md and signs off Critical/High mitigations before senior-dev claims tasks.
cms-reviewer
CMS / content-platform pre-implementation reviewer. Outputs threat model TM-{slug}.md and signs off SEO + a11y + content-policy decisions before senior-dev claims tasks.
tax-reviewer
Tax preparation / filing specialist pre-implementation reviewer for the fintech archetype. Outputs threat model TM-tax-{slug}.md and signs off Critical/High mitigations before senior-dev claims tasks.
voice-ai-reviewer
Voice-AI / telephony pre-implementation reviewer. Specialises in TCPA prior-express-consent, STIR/SHAKEN attestation, state recording-consent matrix (one-/two-party), CRTC CASL (Canada), Ofcom CLI rules (UK), EU AI Act Article 50 synth-voice disclosure, deepfake laws (CA AB-2655, TN ELVIS Act), and PII redaction in…