Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to talayash/agentrium. 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/talayash/agentrium/master/.claude/commands/security-review.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/talayash/agentriumWrote 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/talayash/agentrium/security-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/talayash/agentrium/security-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/talayash/agentrium/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/talayash/agentrium/security-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/talayash/agentrium/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 | $0.00000 | $0.00445 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00178 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00089 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00044 |
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
Security Review
Run a security audit on the codebase or recent changes.
Instructions
Perform a security review of: $ARGUMENTS (or entire codebase if no arguments)
Scan Areas
1. Command Injection
- Search
src-tauri/src/forcmd /C,Command::new, process spawning - Verify all user-controlled strings are properly escaped
- Check
write_to_terminalfor injection vectors
2. Path Traversal
- Search for file operations using user-provided paths
- Check workspace loading/saving for path validation
- Ensure no
..traversal is possible
3. Secrets Detection
- Search entire codebase for patterns: API keys, tokens, passwords, secrets
- Check
.envfiles, config files, hardcoded strings - Verify
.gitignorecovers sensitive files
4. IPC Security
- Review
src-tauri/capabilities/default.jsonfor overly broad permissions - Check that all IPC commands validate their inputs
- Verify error messages don't leak internal paths or state
5. Dependency Audit
- Check for known vulnerabilities:
npm auditandcargo audit(if available) - Flag outdated dependencies with known CVEs
6. Frontend Security
- Search for
eval(),innerHTML,dangerouslySetInnerHTML - Check CSP configuration in
tauri.conf.json - Verify no sensitive data in localStorage (Zustand persist)
7. Update Security
- Verify auto-updater uses signed releases
- Check update endpoint configuration
Output
## Security Audit Report
### CRITICAL 🔴 (must fix immediately)
[findings]
### HIGH 🟠 (should fix before release)
[findings]
### MEDIUM 🟡 (fix when convenient)
[findings]
### LOW 🔵 (informational)
[findings]
### Summary
- Total: N findings (C critical, H high, M medium, L low)
- Risk level: LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH / CRITICAL
- Recommended actions: [prioritized list]
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 First seen · 66 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 8402933e0d20
security-review is a command published in the GitHub repository talayash/agentrium (46 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 445 tokens. 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
brain
Set up or use your Professional Brain — init, ingest, recall, or review.
review
A command for reviewing code with security checks and a check for compliance with MX tags. The available description does not explain what MX tags are.
code-review
Perform a thorough code review that verifies functionality, maintainability, and security before approving a change. Focus on architecture, readability, performance implications, and provide actionable suggestions for improvement.
tools-pass
Review internal tooling, editor workflows, and automation quality.
develop
Implement skill development issues with TDD-governed workflow.
review
A command for reviewing the latest code changes. Code review is a check for bugs, unclear code, and other problems before changes are accepted.