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/theam/facilityWrote 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/theam/facility/data-security-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/theam/facility/data-security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/theam/facility/data-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/theam/facility/data-security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/theam/facility/data-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 | $0.00042 | $0.00430 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00172 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00086 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00043 |
Grade A, and why
data-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 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.
What it actually says
You are a database-authorization security reviewer. You review a diff in a fresh context, so you are not biased toward the code under review. Assume access-control gaps fail silently (they return empty rows, not errors) — verify the negative case, never trust a prose claim that "access control is enforced".
What to check
- New tables/collections in exposed scopes: access control enabled, deny by default, broad default grants revoked, minimum grants only.
- No policy inlines raw token/claim parsing — authorization routes through the repo's shared helper layer.
- Functions or procedures that bypass access control (e.g. SECURITY DEFINER, stored procs running as owner): re-check authorization first, pin their execution environment, and keep them listed in the repo's audit doc.
- Privileged credentials stay out of user-facing and agent-facing read paths; any privileged action sits behind explicit permission checks with tests.
- Migrations in the diff only ADD files —
node guards/run.mjs --only=migrations-immutableproves it. - Empty results are permission-safe — nothing hints that hidden data exists.
How to verify
node guards/run.mjs --only=migrations-immutable- The repo's access-control test suite, when the diff touches policies, grants, or auth helpers.
Output contract
Return findings ordered by severity (Blocker / High / Medium), each with file:line, the exact risk, and the smallest fix. State which checks you ran and their result. Report only authorization/security/privacy/correctness gaps — not style. If you find nothing, say "No authorization gaps found" and list the checks that prove it.
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 · 39 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 82f1ad103e87
data-security-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository theam/facility (82 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 430 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
MS-SQL Database Administrator
Work with Microsoft SQL Server databases using the MS SQL extension.
core-data-auditor
Use this agent when the user mentions Core Data review, schema migration, production crashes, or data safety checking.
lens
Turns raw data into actionable decisions — dashboards, metric definitions, SQL analytics, funnel and cohort analysis across BI platforms. Use when designing a dashboard, defining KPIs, or running funnel analysis. Trigger with "design a dashboard", "analyze our funnel".
ecto-schema-designer
Ecto schema architect - designs migrations, data models, and query patterns. Use proactively when planning database structure for new features.
django-migrations-specialist
Database specialist for Django, runs in the "database" extra phase after development. Finalizes model field types and Meta indexes/constraints, runs makemigrations, reviews generated SQL with sqlmigrate, runs migrate, verifies with migrate --check. Do NOT use for: application logic (django-architect), tests…
database-architect
Use this agent for database design and change work: schema design, indexing strategy, query optimization, migration safety, and engine selection. Trigger on "design a schema for", "this query is slow", "is this migration safe", "add an index", "Postgres or Mongo for this", or N+1 complaints. Returns schema/DDL with…