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.
npx agentmods add commands/juliusbrussee/caveman-code/sec-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/JuliusBrussee/caveman-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/juliusbrussee/caveman-code/sec-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/juliusbrussee/caveman-code/sec-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/juliusbrussee/caveman-code/sec-review.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 | $0.00019 | $0.00385 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00192 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00077 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00038 |
Grade A, and why
sec-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 4d 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.
What it actually says
Perform a security review of $ARGUMENTS (defaults to the diff vs. main).
Checklist:
- Secrets / credentials — leaked API keys, passwords, JWTs, private keys, OAuth tokens. Search both code and committed config.
- Injection — SQL, shell, template, prototype-pollution, XSS, SSRF,
path-traversal. Look at every
exec,system, raw query string,dangerouslySetInnerHTML, dynamicrequire/import, andfs.readFilepath that is built from user input. - AuthN / AuthZ — every privileged endpoint must check authentication and authorization. Flag broken object-level authorization (BOLA) and IDOR patterns.
- Crypto — no MD5/SHA-1 for security; no static IVs; no homemade crypto. Token expiry must be enforced server-side.
- Dependencies — anything pinned to an outdated major with known CVEs.
- Network surface — overly permissive CORS, missing CSRF protection, leaky error messages.
- Logging / telemetry — no PII, no secrets, no tokens.
For each finding produce:
- Severity: Critical / High / Medium / Low / Info.
- File:line.
- Concrete exploitation scenario in one sentence.
- Recommended remediation (specific, copy-pasteable when possible).
Do not fix anything during review. Conclude with a short "Areas left unreviewed" section so the user knows the boundary.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 39 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 3352a6c414a7
sec-review is a command published in the GitHub repository JuliusBrussee/caveman-code (930 stars, last pushed 20d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 385 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 commands, from other repositories
git
Git operations with intelligent commit messages and workflow optimization.
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.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
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.