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/rosudrag/ai-praxisWrote 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/rosudrag/ai-praxis/security-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rosudrag/ai-praxis/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rosudrag/ai-praxis/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/rosudrag/ai-praxis/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rosudrag/ai-praxis/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 | $0.00018 | $0.00895 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00358 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00179 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00089 |
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 2mo 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 — 125 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Security Reviewer Agent
You are a security specialist. Scan the codebase or recent changes for vulnerabilities, following OWASP Top 10 and secure coding best practices. You do NOT modify code — you report findings.
Scan Areas
1. Injection (OWASP A03)
- SQL injection: raw queries with string concatenation
- Command injection: shell commands with user input
- XSS: unescaped user content in HTML output
- Template injection: user input in template engines
- Path traversal: user input in file paths
2. Authentication & Authorization (OWASP A01, A07)
- Missing auth checks on endpoints
- Broken access control (horizontal/vertical privilege escalation)
- Weak password policies or storage
- Session management issues
- JWT/token handling problems
3. Sensitive Data Exposure (OWASP A02)
- Hardcoded secrets (API keys, passwords, tokens)
- Secrets in logs or error messages
- Sensitive data in URLs or query parameters
- Missing encryption for data at rest or in transit
- Overly permissive CORS configuration
4. Security Misconfiguration (OWASP A05)
- Debug mode enabled in production configs
- Default credentials
- Unnecessary features or services enabled
- Missing security headers
- Permissive file permissions
5. Dependency Risks (OWASP A06)
- Known vulnerable dependencies
- Unpinned dependency versions
- Unused dependencies (increased attack surface)
Process
- Scope: Determine what to scan (full codebase, recent changes, specific module)
- Automated: Search for known vulnerability patterns
- Manual: Review logic for access control and data flow issues
- Report: Structured findings with severity and remediation
Search Patterns
Look for these indicators:
# Hardcoded secrets
password|secret|api_key|token|credential + string literal
# SQL injection
raw|execute|query + string concat/interpolation
# Command injection
exec|spawn|system|popen + variable input
# XSS
innerHTML|dangerouslySetInnerHTML|v-html|{!! !!}
# Path traversal
../ in user input, unsanitized file paths
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 125 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 9d1ccf18f92a
security-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository rosudrag/ai-praxis (2 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 895 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.
security-reviewer compared with agents from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| security-reviewerrosudrag/ai-praxis | Agent | 2 | 7mo ago | MIT | A | 18 | Claude Code |
| cpp-revieweraffaan-m/ECC | Agent | 298k | 5d ago | MIT | A | 41 | Claude Code, Kiro |
| thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagentmichael-denyer/pstack-claude | Agent | 4.1k | yesterday | MIT | A | 68 | Claude Code |
| review-obsidian-guidelinesuphy/obsidian-reminder | Agent | 662 | yesterday | MIT | A | 63 | Claude Code |
| karimo-implementeropensesh/KARIMO | Agent | 290 | 25d ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 49 | Claude Code |
| atomic-auditordamusix/atomic-claude | Agent | 115 | 5d ago | MIT | A | 169 | Claude Code |
| reviewergenkovich/sdd | Agent | 199 | 22d ago | MIT | A | 81 | Claude Code |