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/Ashikparvez89/larouex-fullstack-pluginWrote 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/commands/ashikparvez89/larouex-fullstack-plugin/review-security)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ashikparvez89/larouex-fullstack-plugin/review-security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ashikparvez89/larouex-fullstack-plugin/review-security/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/commands/ashikparvez89/larouex-fullstack-plugin/review-security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ashikparvez89/larouex-fullstack-plugin/review-security.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00149 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00060 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00030 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00015 |
Grade A, and why
review-security 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to review-security — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
Perform comprehensive security audit using code-review-agent and security-production-agent. Scan for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities: SQL injection, XSS, CSRF, insecure authentication, broken access control, security misconfiguration, sensitive data exposure, insufficient logging, insecure deserialization, and vulnerable dependencies. Check environment variable handling, API key exposure, HTTPS enforcement, security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options), input validation, output encoding, rate limiting, session management, and file upload restrictions. Run npm audit and analyze results. Check Azure/Railway security configurations. Provide prioritized findings with severity ratings, exploitation scenarios, and remediation steps. Include compliance gaps and recommendations for security hardening. Output actionable security improvements with specific code fixes.
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 · 2 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 5c92bb095f4e
review-security is a command published in the GitHub repository Ashikparvez89/larouex-fullstack-plugin (3 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 149 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to review-security, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
review-security
Perform comprehensive security audit using code-review-agent and security-production-agent. Scan for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities: SQL injection, XSS, CSRF, insecure authentication, broken access control, security misconfiguration, sensitive data exposure, insufficient logging, insecure deserialization, and vulnerable…
review-api
Review an API endpoint using code-review-agent with azure-serverless-agent or devops-railway-agent based on deployment target. Analyze input validation (Zod schemas), authentication and authorization, rate limiting, CORS configuration, error handling with proper HTTP status codes, security vulnerabilities (SQL…
review-code
Review all uncommitted changes in the current working directory using code-review-agent. Analyze code quality, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility compliance, and adherence to Next.js 15 and React 18+ best practices. Check TypeScript strict mode compliance, proper Server/Client component usage…
review-component
Review a specific React component file using code-review-agent and frontend-development-agent. Analyze component architecture, proper Server vs Client component usage, prop types, hooks patterns (useState, useEffect, useCallback, useMemo), accessibility attributes (ARIA labels, semantic HTML, keyboard navigation)…
deploy-azure-production
Deploy to Azure production with mandatory review gate and comprehensive validation.
deploy-railway-production
Deploy to Railway production environment with mandatory review gate and validation.