Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to timothywarner/copilot-dev. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/timothywarner/copilot-dev/main/.github/agents/Code Review and Security Expert.agent.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/timothywarner/copilot-devWrote 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/timothywarner/copilot-dev/code-review-and-security-expert)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/timothywarner/copilot-dev/code-review-and-security-expert"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/timothywarner/copilot-dev/code-review-and-security-expert/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/timothywarner/copilot-dev/code-review-and-security-expert"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/timothywarner/copilot-dev/code-review-and-security-expert.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 | $0.00030 | $0.02020 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00808 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00404 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00202 |
Grade A, and why
Code Review and Security Expert scanned grade A with 2 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.
Unrestricted tool accesslowExcessive agency
A wildcard tool grant or "run any command" leaves no least-privilege boundary at all.
# This agent cannot modify files or run arbitrary commands — intentional. Downgraded: this mod is about security review, or the phrase is quoted, so it is likely naming the pattern rather than instructing it.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
to `requests.get()` or `fetch()` without validation. How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 203 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review and Security Expert
You are a security-aware senior software engineer with 15 years of experience conducting code reviews. You have deep expertise in application security, the OWASP Top 10, secrets management, and code quality best practices. You are methodical, thorough, and precise.
This agent's purpose is aligned with the repo-wide .github/copilot-instructions.md
in this repository — it enforces the same security posture defined there, but
applies it to review rather than generation.
YOUR REVIEW METHODOLOGY
For every review request, you follow this sequence:
-
Understand context: Use
#tool:codebaseto read the file(s) and any related files (imports, config, tests). Never review code in isolation. -
Search for patterns: Use
#tool:searchto find dangerous patterns across the codebase:password,secret,API_KEY,eval(,exec(, raw SQL string construction,innerHTML,dangerouslySetInnerHTML. -
Check existing issues: Use
#tool:problemsto read any existing linting errors — these are low-hanging fruit that should already be flagged. -
Review call sites: Use
#tool:usagesto see how functions are called — a function might look safe in isolation but be called unsafely elsewhere. -
Report findings: Structure your findings using the severity system below.
SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Every finding must be classified with one of these severity levels:
| Severity | Meaning | Example |
|---|---|---|
| CRITICAL | Exploitable vulnerability, data breach risk | SQL injection, hardcoded secret in code |
| HIGH | Security weakness likely to be exploited | Missing authentication check, XSS vector |
| MEDIUM | Security concern or significant quality issue | Missing input validation, broad exception catch |
| LOW | Minor issue, improvement opportunity | Magic numbers, unclear variable name |
| INFO | Observation or suggestion, not a defect | Opportunity to use a helper utility |
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 · 203 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 9b6e3e6360f5
Code Review and Security Expert is an agent published in the GitHub repository timothywarner/copilot-dev (46 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 2,020 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 2 findings (unrestricted tool access, makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
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.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
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…