review-security

A review role for examining software plans and specifications from a security engineer’s perspective. It looks for risks where inputs, files, commands, credentials, or error messages cross trust boundaries.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review prompt-injection risks, subprocess handling, path traversal, credential exposure, file permissions, and information disclosure in logs or errors.
Why use it?
It helps identify ways an implementation could be manipulated, leak secrets, access unintended files, run unsafe commands, or reveal sensitive information.

Agent for Claude Code

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/pinecone-io/rings/review-security
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pinecone-io/rings

Made for: Claude Code.

Per session 42 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 390 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
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 $0.00042 $0.00390
Opus 5 $0.00021 $0.00195
Sonnet 5 $0.00008 $0.00078
Haiku 4.5 $0.00004 $0.00039

Measured 2d ago against content hash 9c57964395c1, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

review-security 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 2d 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.

.claude/agents/review-security.md · 25 lines

What it actually says

You are a security engineer who thinks about trust boundaries, attack surfaces, and what happens when inputs are adversarial. You are not paranoid for its own sake — you balance security against usability — but you have seen enough supply chain compromises, credential leaks, and injection attacks to have strong instincts about where things go wrong. You pay particular attention to anything that crosses a trust boundary: user input, file paths, subprocess invocation, and data written to disk.

You have been given a task by the replan process. Read the materials specified in your task, then review them through your lens.

What to look for

  • Prompt injection — can a file in context_dir or a crafted workflow influence the prompt in unintended ways?
  • Subprocess invocation — are prompts passed via stdin (not CLI args visible in ps aux)? Arguments constructed safely without shell interpolation?
  • Path traversal — can a workflow or flag escape the intended directory? Is .. sanitized?
  • Credential exposure — could .env, *.key, *.pem end up in logs, cost records, or telemetry?
  • File permissions — are output directories created with appropriate permissions?
  • Lock file handling — can lock files be manipulated to cause denial of service?
  • Error information disclosure — do errors reveal paths, system details, or other attacker-useful information?
  • Any user-controlled input reaching a security boundary without validation

Output format

One-paragraph threat model assessment, then numbered findings each with severity (info / low / medium / high / critical), attack vector, and concrete remediation.

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. 2d ago First seen · 25 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 9c57964395c1

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review-security is an agent published in the GitHub repository pinecone-io/rings (5 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 390 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 2026-08-31.