Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Hack23/European-Parliament-MCP-Server. 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/Hack23/European-Parliament-MCP-Server/main/.github/skills/secure-code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Hack23/European-Parliament-MCP-ServerWrote 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/hack23/european-parliament-mcp-server/secure-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hack23/european-parliament-mcp-server/secure-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hack23/european-parliament-mcp-server/secure-code-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/hack23/european-parliament-mcp-server/secure-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hack23/european-parliament-mcp-server/secure-code-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 | $0.00030 | $0.00891 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00445 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00178 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00089 |
Grade A, and why
secure-code-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 10d 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
86% identical to compliance-frameworks — 573 lines 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 — 96 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Secure Code Review Skill
Purpose
Conduct thorough security code reviews for TypeScript MCP server code, identifying vulnerabilities before production.
When to Use
- ✅ Reviewing pull requests before merge
- ✅ Conducting periodic security audits
- ✅ Implementing features that handle external API data
- ✅ Integrating third-party libraries
- ✅ Before major releases
Security Review Checklist
Input Validation (OWASP A03 - Injection)
// ✅ SECURE: Zod schema validation
import { z } from 'zod';
const InputSchema = z.object({
id: z.number().int().positive(),
name: z.string().min(1).max(255),
country: z.string().length(2)
});
// ❌ INSECURE: No validation
function getUser(id: any) { return db.query(`SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${id}`); }
API Security (OWASP A01 - Broken Access Control)
- ✅ Validate all MCP tool inputs with Zod schemas
- ✅ Rate limit API calls to European Parliament endpoints
- ✅ Handle errors without leaking internal details
- ✅ Use HTTPS for all external API calls
- ✅ Set appropriate request timeouts
Dependency Security (OWASP A06 - Vulnerable Components)
npm audit --audit-level=high
npx knip # Find unused dependencies
npm run test:licenses # Check license compliance
Error Handling
// ✅ SECURE: Generic error messages
catch (error) {
logger.error('Internal error details', { error });
return { error: 'An unexpected error occurred' };
}
// ❌ INSECURE: Leaking internals
catch (error) {
return { error: error.stack }; // Never expose stack traces
}
Review Exit Criteria
- ✅ No new CodeQL alerts introduced
- ✅ All inputs validated with Zod schemas
- ✅ No secrets or credentials in code
- ✅ Error handling doesn't leak sensitive info
- ✅ Security tests added for sensitive features
- ✅ Dependencies scanned for vulnerabilities
ISMS Policy References
Core SDLC policies (authoritative — always cite the applicable ones in review comments):
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 96 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A afa3ed836f84
secure-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Hack23/European-Parliament-MCP-Server (28 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 891 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to compliance-frameworks, differing in 573 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
trace-mcp-refactoring
Safe refactoring workflow using trace-mcp — assess risk, find candidates, check impact, and rename symbols across all files without missing import sites or cross-file references.
m1nd-first
Use when investigating a repository, searching for implementation, reviewing changes, working from specs/docs, or preparing a risky code change in an environment where m1nd is available. This doctrine makes m1nd the first investigative layer before grep, glob, or manual file reads, except when the task is pure…
review-thread
Record review verdicts and run the StateNote review thread on an agent-operation instance — every ReviewRequest verdict is one atomic batch-direct-write that advances status and co-writes a reviewnote explaining why, and findings are corrected by appending notes rather than editing them.
audit-architecture
Audit module coupling, cohesion, hidden dependencies, and design smells. Use when conducting architecture reviews, evaluating design decisions, or identifying structural tech debt.
find-bugs
Locate likely bug locations in code.
sumo-qa-planning-qa-rollout
Use when you have a chunk of QA work (a story, a PR, a strategy phase) that needs to be turned into a written plan of bite-sized, independently-executable tasks before any test code is written. Walks scope → file structure → bite-sized tasks → confirm, one section per turn. Produces docs/qa/plans/YYYY-MM-DD- .md ready…