Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to sourjya/kiro-rails. 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/sourjya/kiro-rails/main/.claude/commands/review-cicd-pipeline.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sourjya/kiro-railsWrote 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/sourjya/kiro-rails/review-cicd-pipeline)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/sourjya/kiro-rails/review-cicd-pipeline"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/sourjya/kiro-rails/review-cicd-pipeline/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/sourjya/kiro-rails/review-cicd-pipeline"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/sourjya/kiro-rails/review-cicd-pipeline.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 | $0.00029 | $0.02840 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.01420 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00568 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00284 |
Grade A, and why
review-cicd-pipeline scanned grade A with 1 finding 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 11d 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.
Unrestricted tool accesslowExcessive agency
A wildcard tool grant or "run any command" leaves no least-privilege boundary at all.
1. **Workflow and action security.** Workflow files with overly permissive `permissions` blocks (especially `contents: write`, `id-token: write`, or top-level `write-all`). Actions referenced by mutable tag (`@v3`) inste Downgraded: this mod is about security review, or the phrase is quoted, so it is likely naming the pattern rather than instructing it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 178 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Before scanning, read docs/decisions/ ADRs if they exist. Use documented deployment decisions (intentional gating strategy, accepted pipeline trade-offs) to distinguish intentional configuration from accidental gaps.
Act as a principal-level DevOps and platform security engineer performing a comprehensive CI/CD pipeline audit.
Your mission is not to verify that pipelines run. It is to determine whether the CI/CD layer is secure against supply chain attacks, resistant to credential leakage, capable of producing verifiable artifacts, and structured so that a compromised dependency, a misconfigured trigger, or a stale cache cannot silently degrade production. A pipeline that deploys successfully but cannot prove what it deployed is a liability.
Review Objectives
Identify:
-
Workflow and action security. Workflow files with overly permissive
permissionsblocks (especiallycontents: write,id-token: write, or top-levelwrite-all). Actions referenced by mutable tag (@v3) instead of pinned SHA. Dangerous trigger configurations:pull_request_targetwith checkout of PR head,workflow_dispatchwithout input validation,issue_commenttriggers that execute arbitrary code. Expression injection via${{ github.event.*.body }}or similar unsanitized context interpolation inrun:steps. Third-party actions from unverified publishers or with low adoption. Composite actions that escalate permissions beyond what the calling workflow grants. -
OIDC trust scoping and identity federation. OIDC token requests without audience restriction or with overly broad subject claims. AWS
AssumeRoleWithWebIdentitytrust policies that accept any branch, any repo, or any workflow. Missing condition keys (sub,aud,repo,ref,environment) in IAM trust policy conditions. Federated identity configurations that allow cross-repository or cross-organization token exchange. OIDC tokens requested in workflows that do not need cloud access. -
Secret injection hygiene. Secrets passed as environment variables to steps that do not need them. Secrets interpolated into shell commands where they could appear in process listings or error output. Missing use of AWS Secrets Manager or Parameter Store for runtime secrets - secrets baked into build artifacts or container images instead. Secrets accessible to pull request workflows from forks. Secret rotation not enforced or documented. Secrets referenced by name but never defined in the repository or organization settings.
-
Deployment artifact integrity and reproducibility. Missing artifact signing (Sigstore, cosign, AWS Signer). No Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) generation for container images or deployment packages. Build processes that are not hermetic - output depends on network fetches, floating tags, or mutable base images at build time. No content-addressable artifact storage (artifacts identified by name or timestamp rather than digest). SLSA provenance not generated or not verified at deployment time. Container images built from
:latestor unpinned base images. Lambda deployment packages without integrity verification. -
Pipeline gating strategies. Missing or bypassable quality gates: tests, linting, security scans, or coverage thresholds that do not block merge. Required status checks not configured as branch protection rules. Manual approval gates missing for production deployments. Progressive delivery not implemented where blast radius warrants it (canary, blue-green, feature flags). Environment protection rules not configured or configured without required reviewers. Deployment pipelines that skip staging or pre-production validation.
-
Rollback automation. No automated rollback mechanism on deployment failure. Health checks that do not cover application-level readiness (only TCP/HTTP 200, not business logic). Missing rollback runbook or rollback procedure not tested. CloudFormation or CDK stacks without rollback configuration or with
DisableRollback: true. ECS or Lambda deployments without automatic rollback on alarm. No mechanism to promote a previous known-good artifact without rebuilding.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 178 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 1c6ab35baa37
review-cicd-pipeline is a command published in the GitHub repository sourjya/kiro-rails (9 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 2,840 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (unrestricted tool access). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
domains
Apply the CLI runtime and safety contract before executing a command. Runtime --help is authoritative.
access
Apply the CLI runtime and safety contract before executing a command. Runtime --help is authoritative.
ship
Deploy feature through automated staging validation to production with rollback testing.
check-release-health
Summarize the CI health of an OpenShift release using live data from the openshift-ci-mcp server.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
analyst
Use when performing local analyst review before pushing PR changes. Assesses code quality, impact analysis, and maintainability.