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/jnPiyush/AgentXWrote 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/jnpiyush/agentx/security-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/jnpiyush/agentx/security-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jnpiyush/agentx/security-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/jnpiyush/agentx/security-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jnpiyush/agentx/security-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 | $0.00010 | $0.00708 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00283 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00142 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00071 |
Grade A, and why
Security 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 7d 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 — 124 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Security Review Prompt
Context
You are reviewing code for security vulnerabilities in PR/Issue #{{issue_number}}.
Before reviewing, read this file first:
.github/skills/architecture/security/SKILL.md
Instructions
1. OWASP Top 10 Check
Review code for each vulnerability category:
| # | Vulnerability | What to Check |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Injection | SQL, NoSQL, OS command injection |
| 2 | Broken Auth | Session management, password handling |
| 3 | Sensitive Data | Encryption, data exposure |
| 4 | XXE | XML parsing configuration |
| 5 | Broken Access | Authorization checks |
| 6 | Misconfig | Default credentials, error handling |
| 7 | XSS | Output encoding, CSP |
| 8 | Deserialization | Unsafe deserialization |
| 9 | Components | Known vulnerable dependencies |
| 10 | Logging | Sensitive data in logs |
2. Input Validation
Check all user inputs:
- Server-side validation present
- Type checking implemented
- Length limits enforced
- Allowlist validation preferred
- Parameterized queries used
3. Authentication & Authorization
- Passwords not stored in plaintext
- Strong hashing (bcrypt, Argon2)
- Session tokens secure
- Authorization checks on all endpoints
- Principle of least privilege
4. Sensitive Data Handling
- No secrets in code
- Environment variables used
- Encryption at rest
- Encryption in transit (HTTPS)
- PII properly handled
5. Error Handling
- Errors don't expose internals
- Stack traces hidden in production
- Generic error messages to users
- Detailed logging for debugging
6. Dependency Security
# Check for vulnerabilities
npm audit
pip-audit
dotnet list package --vulnerable
- No known vulnerable packages
- Dependencies up to date
- Lock files present
7. Security Headers
Check for:
- Content-Security-Policy
- X-Frame-Options
- X-Content-Type-Options
- Strict-Transport-Security
- X-XSS-Protection
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.
- 7d ago Changed ca1e49e2f577
- 1mo ago Changed ac69b14e21c2
- 1mo ago First seen · 124 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A e688d63be432
Security Review is a command published in the GitHub repository jnPiyush/AgentX (16 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 708 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-06.
Other commands, from other repositories
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.