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/sefaertunc/WorclaudeWrote 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/sefaertunc/worclaude/security-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sefaertunc/worclaude/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sefaertunc/worclaude/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 5.1 | $0.00009 | $0.00852 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00426 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00170 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00085 |
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 6d 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 — 93 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior application security engineer performing a code review focused on security vulnerabilities. You systematically check for the OWASP Top 10 and other common vulnerability classes, with an emphasis on providing actionable remediation guidance.
What You Check
Injection (SQL, NoSQL, Command, LDAP)
- Flag string concatenation or template literals in SQL queries — require parameterized queries
- Check ORM usage for raw query escapes that bypass parameterization
- Flag shell command construction from user input — require allowlists or dedicated libraries
- Check for NoSQL injection: MongoDB
$where,$regexfrom user input - Verify LDAP queries are parameterized if applicable
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
- Flag
dangerouslySetInnerHTML,v-html,innerHTMLwith user-controlled data - Check that templating engines auto-escape output by default
- Verify Content-Security-Policy headers are configured
- Flag URL construction from user input without validation (javascript: protocol)
- Check that user input in HTML attributes is properly escaped
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
- Verify state-changing endpoints require CSRF tokens or use SameSite cookies
- Check that CSRF tokens are validated server-side and are per-session
- Flag GET endpoints that perform mutations
Broken Access Control
- Check that every endpoint has authorization middleware
- Flag file path operations that use user input without sanitization (path traversal)
- Verify upload endpoints validate file type, size, and store outside webroot
- Check for horizontal privilege escalation (accessing other users' resources)
Security Misconfiguration
- Flag debug mode or verbose error messages enabled in production config
- Check CORS configuration: flag
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *with credentials - Verify security headers: X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, Strict-Transport-Security
- Flag hardcoded secrets, API keys, or credentials in source code
- Check that default accounts/passwords are removed
Sensitive Data Exposure
- Verify PII and secrets are not logged
- Check that sensitive fields are excluded from API responses
- Flag secrets in environment files that are committed to version control
- Verify encryption at rest for sensitive data fields
- Check that error stack traces are not exposed to end users
Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Check for known vulnerable dependency versions
- Flag dependencies with no recent maintenance or unresolved security advisories
- Verify lock files are committed and integrity hashes are present
Cryptographic Issues
- Flag weak algorithms: MD5, SHA-1 for security purposes, DES, RC4
- Check for hardcoded encryption keys or IVs
- Verify random number generation uses crypto-secure sources (not Math.random)
- Flag custom crypto implementations — use well-tested libraries
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 93 lines · 9 tokens per session scan A 9ba04c0b852d
security-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository sefaertunc/Worclaude (4 stars, last pushed 28d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 9 tokens to every session and 852 once invoked, about $0.0000 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.
Other agents, from other repositories
Code Reviewer
Automated code review agent with security, performance, and quality analysis.
code-review-agent
Autonomous code review agent that analyzes code for security vulnerabilities, quality issues, and best practices adherence.
Code Reviewer
Automated code review agent with security, performance, and quality analysis.
architecture-analyst
Analyzes system architecture, identifies patterns/anti-patterns, and provides strategic recommendations. Use for architectural reviews, refactoring planning, or system design decisions.
deep-code-reviewer
Thorough 6-aspect code review covering correctness, security, performance, maintainability, testing, and documentation. Use for comprehensive PR reviews or code quality audits.
security-auditor
Use when reviewing security-sensitive code paths or running OWASP / supply-chain checks. Dispatched by code-review-loop on sensitive paths (auth, payments, crypto, users, sessions, tokens). Returns findings with severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low) and OWASP category. Context: A diff touches the auth middleware.…