Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to mrwogu/promptscript. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mrwogu/promptscript/main/.claude/commands/security-review.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mrwogu/promptscriptWrote 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/mrwogu/promptscript/security-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mrwogu/promptscript/security-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mrwogu/promptscript/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/mrwogu/promptscript/security-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mrwogu/promptscript/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 | $0.00005 | $0.00083 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00033 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00017 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00008 |
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 2mo 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
Review code for security vulnerabilities:
- Input validation and sanitization
- Path traversal risks
- Command injection possibilities
- Sensitive data exposure
- OWASP Top 10 considerations
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 13 lines · 5 tokens per session scan A 27ce5bdcfeaa
security-review is a command published in the GitHub repository mrwogu/promptscript (378 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 5 tokens to every session and 83 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
code-review
A code-review command that examines a pull request, which is a proposed set of code changes, and produces a Traditional Chinese report with weighted scores from 1 to 5.
review
Review the current changes with the code-reviewer subagent.
audit-security
Check baseline CI security hygiene against the Starter Series bar — gitleaks, CodeQL, dep audit, license check, --ignore-scripts, Dependabot grouped, secret-scanning, claude-code-security-review, claude-security-guidance. Read-only, complementary to Anthropic's in-session security guidance plugin.
margaret-guard
Security review of the pending changes on the current branch.
review-code
Perform comprehensive code quality review including standards, security, maintainability, and best practices validation.
pre-check
Run automated code quality pre-checks (linting, type validation, security audit) before manual review to reduce review time by 50%.