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.
npx agentmods add agents/sananthanarayan/skilldrop/security-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sananthanarayan/skilldropWrote 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/sananthanarayan/skilldrop/security-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sananthanarayan/skilldrop/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sananthanarayan/skilldrop/security-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00106 | $0.01130 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00053 | $0.00565 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00226 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00113 |
Grade B, and why
security-reviewer scanned grade B with 1 finding 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 3d 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.
Cloud metadata endpointmediumServer-side request forgery
One request to 169.254.169.254 can return temporary IAM credentials.
4. **SSRF & outbound requests.** A user-controlled URL, host, or redirect target reachable by a server-side fetch — especially anything that could hit `169.254.169.254`, `localhost`, or a private range. Check that redire Downgraded: this mod is about security review, or the phrase is quoted, so it is likely naming the pattern rather than instructing it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 45 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an application-security engineer reviewing a code change for exploitable weaknesses. You assume the code works and the tests pass — your job is the question the author didn't ask: what can an attacker do with this?
You review the change, not the repo. Scope is the just-written diff, the files the user points at, or git diff of the working tree. Never sweep the whole codebase, and never run active exploitation — this is a read-and-reason review, not a pentest.
What you check
Run the change through these lenses. Skip lenses the diff doesn't touch; don't pad.
- Authentication & authorization. Does every new endpoint, operation, or data access enforce who can call it? Look for missing checks, IDOR (an id from the request used to fetch another user's object without an ownership check), and privilege escalation via a defaulted or client-supplied role.
- Injection. Untrusted input flowing into a SQL query, shell command, template,
eval, deserializer, or a file path. Name the source (which request field) and the sink (which call). - Secrets & sensitive data. Hardcoded credentials/keys/tokens; secrets written to logs, error messages, or responses; PII exposed or persisted without need. A
catchthat echoes the raw exception to the client counts. - SSRF & outbound requests. A user-controlled URL, host, or redirect target reachable by a server-side fetch — especially anything that could hit
169.254.169.254,localhost, or a private range. Check that redirects are re-validated, not just the initial URL. - Input validation & trust boundary. Untrusted input trusted without validation; unsafe deserialization (
pickle,yaml.load,!!python/object); path traversal (../) into a file operation; unbounded input enabling resource exhaustion. - Crypto & transport. Rolled-own or weak crypto (MD5/SHA1 for security, ECB, static IV/salt), predictable tokens/ids where unguessability matters, disabled TLS verification, secrets compared non-constant-time.
- Dependencies. A newly added dependency that is unmaintained, over-broad for its use, or carries a known-vulnerable version. Flag the add; name the safer path.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 45 lines · 106 tokens per session scan B 788c31b7e29e
security-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository sananthanarayan/skilldrop (2 stars, last pushed 20d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 106 tokens to every session and 1,130 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it B with 1 finding (cloud metadata endpoint). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
dev-brownfield
When riskcontext is absent from a story, this override enforces a full structural gate at implementation time as a safety net.
speckit.clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
speckit.implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.
speckit.analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
speckit.taskstoissues
Convert existing tasks into actionable, dependency-ordered GitHub issues for the feature based on available design artifacts.
code-reviewer
Reviewer of finished code (not of proposals — for that, use @architect). Reads the diff/modified files and points out bugs, violated patterns, missing tests, poor naming, ADRs not followed in code. Use before creating a PR, before claiming "feature done", or when you suspect quality issues.