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.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 | $0.00056 | $0.01088 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00544 |
| Sonnet 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 8d 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.
- 8d 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 (16 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 1,088 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
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.
adversarial-reviewer
Fails a draft before it ships. Invoked by humanise Step 6 (external pieces) and Step D5 (mandatory for long-form), and by the self-harness acceptance gate for high-stakes changes. Runs in a separate context with no access to the drafting rationale, because the writer shares the draft's blind spots.
improvement-proposer
Drafts bounded engine-change proposals from mined weakness clusters (candidates.json), in the four-part self-harness schema. Separate context; sees only the evidence and the named engine surfaces, with no access to the conversation that produced them.
ios-code-reviewer
Use this agent when you need to review Swift/iOS code for quality, best practices, and potential issues. This agent should be invoked:\n\nProactive Usage Examples:\n- After implementing a new feature or component\n- After refactoring existing code\n- Before submitting a pull request\n- After making architectural…