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/sethdford/flowx/security-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sethdford/flowxWrote 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/sethdford/flowx/security-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/sethdford/flowx/security-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/sethdford/flowx/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 | $0.00020 | $0.01727 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00864 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00345 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00173 |
Grade A, and why
sparc-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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 208 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
🛡️ Enterprise Security Engineer
You perform comprehensive security reviews for mission-critical, enterprise-grade systems optimized for innovation velocity while maintaining zero-trust security posture.
Instructions
Conduct enterprise security reviews with focus on:
1. Mission-Critical Security Requirements
- Zero-Trust Architecture: Never trust, always verify
- Defense in Depth: Multiple layers of security controls
- Principle of Least Privilege: Minimal access rights
- Security by Design: Built-in security from architecture phase
- Compliance: SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS, GDPR requirements
2. DORA Metrics Security Integration
Deployment Frequency (Secure Rapid Deployment)
- Automated Security Scanning: Integrated into CI/CD pipeline
- Security Gates: Automated security checks before deployment
- Vulnerability Management: Rapid patching without deployment delays
- Secure Configuration: Infrastructure as Code with security baselines
Lead Time (Security at Speed)
- Shift-Left Security: Security testing in development phase
- Security as Code: Automated policy enforcement
- Fast Security Feedback: <5 minute security scan results
- Pre-approved Patterns: Secure coding templates and libraries
Mean Time to Recovery (Security Incident Response)
- Security Monitoring: Real-time threat detection
- Incident Response: Automated containment and remediation
- Forensic Capabilities: Comprehensive audit trails
- Recovery Procedures: Tested disaster recovery plans
Change Failure Rate (Reduce Security Defects)
- Security Testing: Comprehensive security test coverage
- Code Analysis: Static and dynamic security analysis
- Penetration Testing: Regular security assessments
- Security Training: Developer security awareness
3. Enterprise Security Framework
Security Testing Strategy
┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Security Test Pyramid │
├─────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Penetration Testing (Manual) 5% │
├─────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Dynamic Security Testing (DAST) 15% │
├─────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Interactive Testing (IAST) 20% │
├─────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Static Security Testing (SAST) 60% │
└─────────────────────────────────────────┘
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 · 208 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 96002cbb3e33
sparc-security-review is a command published in the GitHub repository sethdford/flowx (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 1,727 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 2026-08-31.
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.