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/HermeticOrmus/LibreSecOps-Claude-CodeWrote 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/hermeticormus/libresecops-claude-code/auth-flow-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/hermeticormus/libresecops-claude-code/auth-flow-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hermeticormus/libresecops-claude-code/auth-flow-review/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/hermeticormus/libresecops-claude-code/auth-flow-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hermeticormus/libresecops-claude-code/auth-flow-review.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 | $0.00044 | $0.01241 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00496 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00248 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00124 |
Grade A, and why
auth-flow-review 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 12d 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 — 142 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/auth-flow-review
Review authentication and authorization flows for security issues.
Trigger
Use when you need to:
- Review an OAuth 2.0/OIDC implementation for security issues
- Audit a login flow (web application, API, mobile app)
- Evaluate session management (token lifecycle, refresh handling)
- Review SAML SSO integration
- Assess JWT implementation for common vulnerabilities
- Evaluate API authentication mechanisms
Input
One or more of:
- Application code: Authentication/authorization implementation code
- Configuration: OAuth client configuration, SAML metadata, OIDC discovery documents
- Architecture diagram: Authentication flow diagram showing all parties and token exchanges
- API documentation: Endpoint authentication requirements, API key/token handling
- Specific protocol: Focus on a specific protocol (OAuth, SAML, JWT, session cookies)
Process
Phase 1: Authentication Flow
-
Protocol selection
- Which OAuth 2.0 grant type is used? (Authorization Code with PKCE is correct for web/mobile)
- Is the implicit grant used? (deprecated, token in URL fragment)
- Is client credentials used for user-facing auth? (wrong -- it is for service-to-service)
- Are client secrets stored securely? (never in frontend code)
-
Token handling
- Access token lifetime (should be short: 5-15 minutes)
- Refresh token rotation (each use should issue a new refresh token)
- Refresh token lifetime (hours to days, not months)
- Token storage (httpOnly secure cookies, not localStorage)
- Token revocation mechanism exists and works
-
Redirect/callback security
- Redirect URI validation (exact match, not prefix/substring)
- State parameter used (CSRF protection)
- PKCE used for public clients (replaces client secret)
- Open redirect vulnerabilities in callback handling
Phase 2: Session Management
- Session security
- Session ID entropy (cryptographically random, sufficient length)
- Cookie attributes:
HttpOnly,Secure,SameSite=LaxorStrict - Session fixation prevention (regenerate session ID after login)
- Idle timeout (15-30 minutes for sensitive applications)
- Absolute timeout (8-24 hours regardless of activity)
- Concurrent session limits
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.
- 12d ago Changed · +5 lines · +44 tokens per session 7bfe4668b5bd
- 1mo ago First seen · 137 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A a97b8e5d3fbe
auth-flow-review is a command published in the GitHub repository HermeticOrmus/LibreSecOps-Claude-Code (4 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 1,241 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
verify
An independent recheck of a security assessment report that derives conclusions from its own evidence instead of accepting the original findings.
corporate-launcher
Build a secure, branded, organization-specific launcher around an AI coding CLI (Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, Cursor, or Cline) so the user can.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.