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 cybernetix-lab/moss-harness --skill security-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cybernetix-lab/moss-harnessWrote 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/cybernetix-lab/moss-harness/security-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/cybernetix-lab/moss-harness/security-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cybernetix-lab/moss-harness/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/skills/cybernetix-lab/moss-harness/security-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cybernetix-lab/moss-harness/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 | $0.00036 | $0.03032 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.01516 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00606 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00303 |
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 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.
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.
This is a copy
98% identical to security-review — 1 line differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 496 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Security Review Skill
This skill ensures all code follows security best practices and identifies potential vulnerabilities.
When to Activate
- Implementing authentication or authorization
- Handling user input or file uploads
- Creating new API endpoints
- Working with secrets or credentials
- Implementing payment features
- Storing or transmitting sensitive data
- Integrating third-party APIs
Security Checklist
1. Secrets Management
FAIL: NEVER Do This
const apiKey = "sk-proj-xxxxx" // Hardcoded secret
const dbPassword = "password123" // In source code
PASS: ALWAYS Do This
const apiKey = process.env.OPENAI_API_KEY
const dbUrl = process.env.DATABASE_URL
// Verify secrets exist
if (!apiKey) {
throw new Error('OPENAI_API_KEY not configured')
}
Verification Steps
- No hardcoded API keys, tokens, or passwords
- All secrets in environment variables
-
.env.localin .gitignore - No secrets in git history
- Production secrets in hosting platform (Vercel, Railway)
2. Input Validation
Always Validate User Input
import { z } from 'zod'
// Define validation schema
const CreateUserSchema = z.object({
email: z.string().email(),
name: z.string().min(1).max(100),
age: z.number().int().min(0).max(150)
})
// Validate before processing
export async function createUser(input: unknown) {
try {
const validated = CreateUserSchema.parse(input)
return await db.users.create(validated)
} catch (error) {
if (error instanceof z.ZodError) {
return { success: false, errors: error.errors }
}
throw error
}
}
File Upload Validation
function validateFileUpload(file: File) {
// Size check (5MB max)
const maxSize = 5 * 1024 * 1024
if (file.size > maxSize) {
throw new Error('File too large (max 5MB)')
}
// Type check
const allowedTypes = ['image/jpeg', 'image/png', 'image/gif']
if (!allowedTypes.includes(file.type)) {
throw new Error('Invalid file type')
}
// Extension check
const allowedExtensions = ['.jpg', '.jpeg', '.png', '.gif']
const extension = file.name.toLowerCase().match(/\.[^.]+$/)?.[0]
if (!extension || !allowedExtensions.includes(extension)) {
throw new Error('Invalid file extension')
}
return true
}
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 496 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 8cd029a9bdd8
security-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository cybernetix-lab/moss-harness (135 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 3,032 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 98% identical to security-review, differing in 1 line, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…