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/Security-Phoenix-demo/security-skills-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/security-phoenix-demo/security-skills-claude-code/security-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/security-phoenix-demo/security-skills-claude-code/security-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/security-phoenix-demo/security-skills-claude-code/security-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 5.1 | $0.00030 | $0.00541 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00270 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00108 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00054 |
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 8d 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
You are running the security-reviewer skill against recent changes.
Skill
Load skills/Security Assessment/Security-automated-claude-skills/.claude/skills/security-reviewer/SKILL.md —
multi-language reviewer (Python, JS/TS, Go, Java/Kotlin, Rust, Ruby, .NET) with per-language reference packs in languages/,
OWASP/ASVS + endpoint checklists in checklists/, and a triage playbook in playbooks/.
Instructions
- Load the skill above. Read it fully, including the language reference(s) matching the project's stack and the relevant checklists.
- Determine scope:
- If
$ARGUMENTSis provided, scope to that (path, keyword likeauth/endpoints/frontend, or category). - Otherwise, scope to files changed since the last commit (
git diff --name-only HEAD~1) plus obviously security-relevant globs (route files, middleware, auth, templates, IaC).
- If
- Apply the 8-point check (Authn/Authz, Output encoding, SSRF, Secrets, Input handling, Config & headers, Supply chain, Failure modes).
- Confirm before flagging. Pattern matches that turn out safe-by-context get dropped. Open the file and read enough surrounding context to confirm.
- Output one block per finding in the skill's output format:
[SEVERITY] <one-line summary> File: <path>:<line> Category: <one of the 8 categories> Evidence: <code snippet or pattern matched> Fix: <concrete change, ideally a diff> Refs: <CWE-XXX, OWASP A0X:2021, ASVS V-X.Y.Z> - If nothing fires, say so explicitly and list residual risks or untested areas — silence is not a clean bill.
Scope guard
- Read-only. Do not edit code as part of the review itself; describe fixes precisely instead.
- For diff-level checks against a base ref, prefer
/security-0day. - For pre-release sweeps, prefer
/security-assessment. - For architecture / new feature design, prefer
/threatmodel.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 39 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 172c7e202e7f
security-review is a command published in the GitHub repository Security-Phoenix-demo/security-skills-claude-code (69 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 541 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
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.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.