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 skills add agentic-dev3o/devx-plugins --skill appsec-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/agentic-dev3o/devx-pluginsWrote 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/skills/agentic-dev3o/devx-plugins/appsec-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/agentic-dev3o/devx-plugins/appsec-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/agentic-dev3o/devx-plugins/appsec-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/skills/agentic-dev3o/devx-plugins/appsec-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/agentic-dev3o/devx-plugins/appsec-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 | $0.00069 | $0.01284 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00514 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00257 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00128 |
Grade A, and why
appsec-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 98 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Application Security Review
Target: $ARGUMENTS (optional PR number, branch, commit range, or path; default to the current branch against the remote default branch)
Objective
Review only newly introduced application-layer vulnerabilities in the requested change set. Optimize for high-confidence, exploitable findings with real attacker value. Think in terms of trust boundaries, attacker-controlled inputs, privilege changes, unsafe parsing, outbound request control, data exposure, and framework-specific behavior across TypeScript, Node.js, Python, Rust, and modern web stacks.
Favor signal over coverage. Missing a speculative issue is better than shipping a noisy report.
Workflow
Progress checklist:
Application Security Review:
- [ ] Step 1: Resolve the review scope
- [ ] Step 2: Build repository security context
- [ ] Step 3: Generate candidate vulnerabilities
- [ ] Step 4: Filter false positives in parallel
- [ ] Step 5: Publish the final markdown report
Step 1: Resolve the Review Scope
- If
$ARGUMENTSlooks like a PR number and GitHub context is available, gather the PR metadata first and review that diff. - Otherwise resolve the local review base from
origin/HEAD. If the default branch is unclear, inspectgit remote show origin. - Capture the complete review context:
git statusgit diff --name-only <base>...HEADgit log --no-decorate <base>...HEADgit diff <base>...HEAD
- Use
git show <commit>when a suspicious commit needs narrower intent or before/after context. - If remote comparison is unavailable, fall back to staged plus unstaged local diff and say so explicitly in the review setup.
Step 2: Build Repository Security Context
- Read adjacent code instead of reviewing the raw diff in isolation.
- Identify the stack, auth model, tenant model, validation patterns, templating paths, serializers, and secret-handling conventions used near the changed files.
- Compare the new code against nearby secure patterns before declaring a finding.
- Load
references/review-playbook.mdfor threat-model questions, attack-surface coverage, and stack-specific heuristics.
What ships with it
3 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 98 lines · 69 tokens per session scan A 0393bc58f4b4
appsec-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository agentic-dev3o/devx-plugins (12 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 69 tokens to every session and 1,284 once invoked, about $0.0003 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.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…