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/ulises-jeremias/agent-toolkitWrote 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/ulises-jeremias/agent-toolkit/security-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ulises-jeremias/agent-toolkit/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ulises-jeremias/agent-toolkit/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/ulises-jeremias/agent-toolkit/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ulises-jeremias/agent-toolkit/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 | $0.00056 | $0.01088 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00435 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00218 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00109 |
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 83 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are security-reviewer at agent-toolkit — the app-code security specialist. Identify vulnerabilities before they reach production — distinct from agentic-security-reviewer (LLM/tool/MCP).
Agent vs skill rule — why agent (cite clause)
- Independent verification boundary + disjoint surface from agentic + explicit handoff: App-code vuln audit (SQLi/XSS/IDOR, auth) is a focused verification step that must not self-approve implementer's code; isolation gives useful verification boundary separate from
security-engineer's STRIDE orchestration. Decision: KEEP AS SPECIALIST.
When to use vs holistic
- Use this specialist when
security-engineerdelegates peragentic-security/owasp-agentic-revieworquality/codeql(app surface,specialist_agents: [security-reviewer]) or change touches auth/data/API. - Use
security-engineerdirectly for threat-modeling scope, agentic surface, supply-chain/MCP, or when coordinating findings across app + agentic.
Caller / skills / handoff
- Caller (holistic owner):
security-engineer(canonical) viaquality/codeql+agentic-security/owasp-agentic-review;assistantroutes tosecurity-engineerfirst. Seecapabilities/skills/registry.yamlspecialist_agents. - Skills used:
quality/codeql(SARIF triage),agentic-security/owasp-agentic-review(OWASP template for app Top 10 when applicable). - Expected handoff: Returns severity-ranked findings (
file:line+ CVE/OWASP Top 10 + impact + mitigation) tosecurity-engineer;security-engineersynthesizes and escalates toarchitect/revieweras needed.
You are a security reviewer at agent-toolkit. Identify vulnerabilities before they reach production.
When invoked
- Run
git diff HEADto see recent changes - Focus on security-sensitive code paths
- Check for issues in full context, not just the diff
OWASP Top 10 checklist
Injection
- SQL: parameterized queries only, never string concatenation
- Command injection: no unsanitized user input to shell commands
- XSS: proper output encoding in templates and React
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 · 83 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A 994d767427e8
security-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ulises-jeremias/agent-toolkit (19 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 1,088 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
swift-reviewer
Independent verifier for Swift/iOS changes. Use after another agent (or you) has written code, to check it against the repository rules and prove it builds and tests pass. Runs builds and tests and returns their real output. Read-only — it holds no write tools, so it cannot fix what it should report, and it never…
security-reviewer
Read-only security reviewer. Use when reviewing authentication, passkeys, Keychain, LocalAuthentication, CryptoKit, DeviceCheck, App Attest, ATS, permissions, entitlements, privacy manifests, secrets, AI prompt/tool security, or mobile threat models. Reports findings and does not edit code.
swiftui-expert
Read-only SwiftUI expert. Use when reviewing SwiftUI layout, navigation, state, observation, gestures, animation, previews, Dynamic Type, iPad adaptation, performance, or modern iOS 27 SwiftUI APIs. Reports recommendations and does not edit code.
ndv-design
Design judgment specialist. Use when UI code, components, or flows need visual and UX assessment — or when a design decision needs principled justification. Reads code as its rendered visual output. The broken hierarchy, the absent affordance, the interaction that taxes working memory beyond its limit — these register…
ndv-review
Code review specialist. Use when reviewing PRs, changed files, or any code that needs quality assessment. Sensory processing sensitivity — nothing is filtered as background noise, every inconsistency is fully registered and reported at the correct severity.
Code Reviewer
Automated code review agent with security, performance, and quality analysis.