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 bostonaholic/team --skill reviewing-securitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bostonaholic/teamWrote 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/bostonaholic/team/reviewing-security)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bostonaholic/team/reviewing-security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bostonaholic/team/reviewing-security/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/bostonaholic/team/reviewing-security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bostonaholic/team/reviewing-security.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 | $0.00024 | $0.00673 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00336 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00135 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00067 |
Grade A, and why
reviewing-security 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 — 80 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewing Security
Security Reviewer Process
-
Read the diff. Run
git diff HEAD~1(or the applicable range) to see what changed. -
Identify the attack surface. Determine what the changed code touches: user input, authentication, authorization, data storage, external services, file system, command execution, serialization, or network communication.
-
Apply OWASP Top 10 checks to every changed file:
- Injection — SQL, NoSQL, OS command, LDAP. Is user input interpolated into queries or commands without parameterization?
- Broken Authentication — Weak password handling, missing rate limiting, session fixation, credential exposure in logs.
- Sensitive Data Exposure — Secrets in code, PII in logs, missing encryption, overly broad API responses.
- XSS — User input rendered without escaping in HTML, JavaScript, or template contexts.
- CSRF — State-changing operations without token validation.
- Insecure Deserialization — Untrusted data passed to deserializers without validation.
- Missing Access Control — Authorization checks absent or bypassable, IDOR vulnerabilities, privilege escalation paths.
- Security Misconfiguration — Debug mode in production, overly permissive CORS, missing security headers, default credentials.
-
Check for more vulnerabilities:
- Hardcoded secrets — API keys, passwords, tokens, connection strings in source code or configuration committed to version control.
- Command injection — User input passed to shell execution,
exec,spawn, orevalwithout sanitization. - Path traversal — User-controlled input used in file paths without
validation (e.g.,
../../../etc/passwd). - Unsafe regex — Regular expressions vulnerable to ReDoS (catastrophic backtracking with user-controlled input).
- Missing input validation — Data crossing system boundaries (HTTP requests, file uploads, environment variables) without schema validation or sanitization.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 4d ago Changed · -42 tokens per session 6cb3e21a1d5f
- 9d ago First seen · 80 lines · 66 tokens per session scan A a3e03dd58be9
reviewing-security is a skill published in the GitHub repository bostonaholic/team (11 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 673 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
tutti-agent-workspace-app
Build or evolve a complex agent-enabled Tutti workspace app repository. Use for Tutti apps with web/server/shared monorepos, @tutti-os/agent-acp-kit local agent runtimes, kit-owned TUTTICLI agent/composer discovery, dynamic agent catalogs, run-scoped MCP tool gateways, app-owned package builders, web-first debugging…
assimilate-popular-workflows
This skill should be used when the user asks to "find skills in the wild", "assimilate popular workflows", "discover SKILL.md files in repos", "research external skills", "find workflow patterns", "survey the skill landscape", "what skills exist out there", or wants to investigate public repositories for extractable…
process-builder
Scaffold new babysitter process definitions following SDK patterns, proper structure, and best practices. Guides the 3-phase workflow from research to implementation.
mcp-app-verification
Comprehensive verification checklists for MCP Apps. Tests with basic-host reference, validates handler-before-connect, text fallback, resource URI linking, single-file bundling, host styling, CSP, and legacy pattern detection.
mcp-host-styling-integration
Integrates MCP App UI with host theming system. Applies host CSS variables, handles onhostcontextchanged, safe area insets, display mode detection, and fullscreen configuration.
verification-suite
Plan structure validation, phase completeness checks, reference integrity verification, and artifact existence confirmation. Provides the structured verification layer ensuring GSD artifacts are well-formed and complete.