Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add Security-Phoenix-demo/security-skills-claude-code/plugin install phoenix-security-reviewWrote 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/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/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="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 | $0.00030 | $0.00529 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00212 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00106 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00053 |
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 1mo 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 ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/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-audit. - 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.
- 1mo ago Changed 21537ca1d3a1
- 2mo 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 (81 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 529 once invoked, about $0.0001 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.
security-review compared with commands from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| security-reviewSecurity-Phoenix-demo/security-skills-claude-code | Command | 81 | 5d ago | MIT | A | 30 | Claude Code |
| checklistgithub/spec-kit | Command | 148k | yesterday | MIT | A | 13 | Claude Code |
| clarifygithub/spec-kit | Command | 148k | yesterday | MIT | A | 27 | Claude Code |
| specifygithub/spec-kit | Command | 148k | yesterday | MIT | A | 13 | Claude Code |
| analyzegithub/spec-kit | Command | 148k | yesterday | MIT | A | 26 | Claude Code |
| convergegithub/spec-kit | Command | 148k | yesterday | MIT | A | 35 | Claude Code |
| implementgithub/spec-kit | Command | 148k | yesterday | MIT | A | 14 | Claude Code |