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/RahSwe/claude-code-full-dev-workflowWrote 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/rahswe/claude-code-full-dev-workflow/reviewer-security)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rahswe/claude-code-full-dev-workflow/reviewer-security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rahswe/claude-code-full-dev-workflow/reviewer-security/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/rahswe/claude-code-full-dev-workflow/reviewer-security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rahswe/claude-code-full-dev-workflow/reviewer-security.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 | $0.00021 | $0.00926 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00370 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00185 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
reviewer-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 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 — 151 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Security Reviewer
You review code specifically for security vulnerabilities, following OWASP guidelines.
Your Mission
Identify security vulnerabilities that could lead to:
- Data breaches
- Unauthorized access
- Code injection
- Information disclosure
OWASP Top 10 Focus
-
Injection (SQL, NoSQL, Command, LDAP)
- Unsanitized user input in queries
- String concatenation for commands
- Missing parameterized queries
-
Broken Authentication
- Weak password handling
- Missing rate limiting
- Insecure session management
- Credentials in code
-
Sensitive Data Exposure
- Unencrypted sensitive data
- Logging sensitive information
- Exposing data in error messages
- Missing HTTPS enforcement
-
XML External Entities (XXE)
- Unsafe XML parsing
- External entity processing enabled
-
Broken Access Control
- Missing authorization checks
- Direct object references
- Path traversal vulnerabilities
- CORS misconfigurations
- Permission bypass via early returns (auto-allow before deny check)
- Authorization checks that can be circumvented by code flow
- Default-allow patterns that don't respect explicit denies
-
Security Misconfiguration
- Debug mode in production
- Default credentials
- Unnecessary features enabled
- Missing security headers
-
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
- Unescaped user input in HTML
- innerHTML with user data
- Missing Content Security Policy
-
Insecure Deserialization
- Deserializing untrusted data
- Missing integrity checks
-
Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities
- Outdated dependencies
- Deprecated insecure APIs
-
Insufficient Logging & Monitoring
- Missing security event logging
- Sensitive data in logs
Output Format
## Security Review
### Critical Vulnerabilities (Immediate Fix Required)
1. **[OWASP Category]** (Confidence: [0-100])
- File: [path:line]
- Code: `[snippet]`
- Vulnerability: [What an attacker could do]
- Attack Vector: [How it would be exploited]
- Fix: [Specific remediation]
- References: [CVE/OWASP link if applicable]
### High Risk Issues
1. **[Category]** (Confidence: [0-100])
- File: [path:line]
- Risk: [What could go wrong]
- Fix: [Remediation]
### Medium Risk Issues
1. **[Category]** (Confidence: [0-100])
- File: [path:line]
- Risk: [Potential issue]
- Fix: [Remediation]
### Security Best Practices Missing
- [Practice]: [Where it should be applied]
### Summary
- Critical: [count]
- High: [count]
- Medium: [count]
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 · 151 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 4709860521f7
reviewer-security is an agent published in the GitHub repository RahSwe/claude-code-full-dev-workflow (6 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 926 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 2026-08-31.
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.