Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add int2t05/engineering-skills/plugin install engineering-skillsWrote 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/int2t05/engineering-skills/security-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/int2t05/engineering-skills/security-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/int2t05/engineering-skills/security-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00049 | $0.02548 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.01274 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00510 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00255 |
Grade B, and why
security-review scanned grade B with 1 finding 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 8d 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.
Cloud metadata endpointmediumServer-side request forgery
One request to 169.254.169.254 can return temporary IAM credentials.
- **A10: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)** — for server-side URL fetches (webhooks, import-from-URL, image proxies, link previews): allowlist scheme + host, reject if any resolved IP is private/reserved (covers loopba Downgraded: this mod is about security review, or the phrase is quoted, so it is likely naming the pattern rather than instructing it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 130 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
When to use
- Reviewing a change that touches user input, auth, or data storage
- A feature accepts untrusted data, manages sessions, or integrates with external services
- Adding file uploads, webhooks, callbacks, or payment/PII handling
- Before merge on any security-sensitive change
- Triggers on "security review", "check for vulnerabilities", "安全审查", "安全审计", "漏洞检查"
Not for: general code quality review (use code-review); performance profiling (use performance).
Steps
1. Threat model first
Controls bolted on without a threat model are guesses. Before reviewing hardening, spend five minutes thinking like an attacker:
- Map trust boundaries — HTTP requests, form fields, file uploads, webhooks, third-party APIs, message queues, LLM output. Every boundary is attack surface.
- Name the assets — credentials, PII, payment data, admin actions, money movement.
- Run STRIDE per boundary — Spoofing (auth, signature verification), Tampering (integrity, parameterized queries, HTTPS), Repudiation (audit logging), Information disclosure (encryption, field allowlists, generic errors), Denial of service (rate limiting, size caps, timeouts), Elevation of privilege (authorization checks, least privilege).
- Write abuse cases next to use cases — "how would I misuse this?" is your first test.
If you can't name the trust boundaries for a feature, it's not ready to secure (OWASP A04: Insecure Design — most breaches begin in design, not code).
2. Check the three-tier boundary system
Always do (no exceptions):
- Validate all external input at the system boundary (API routes, form handlers)
- Parameterize all database queries — never concatenate user input into SQL
- Encode output to prevent XSS (use framework auto-escaping, don't bypass it)
- HTTPS for all external communication
- Hash passwords with bcrypt/scrypt/argon2 (salt rounds ≥ 12, never plaintext)
- Security headers: CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options
- httpOnly, secure, sameSite cookies for sessions
- Run the package manager's native audit against the committed lockfile before every release
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 130 lines · 49 tokens per session scan B d9a0231c41fc
security-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository int2t05/engineering-skills (3 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 2,548 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it B with 1 finding (cloud metadata endpoint). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
pr-workflow
Crear pull requests completas con descripcion, labels y reviewers.
sonarqube
Levantar SonarQube con Docker, analizar el código y proponer mejoras. También: análisis estático, deuda técnica, code smells, cobertura, calidad automatizada.
skill-audit
Audit codebases for quality, consistency, and broken patterns — use for pre-release or tech debt review.
critical-code-reviewer
Rigorously review code or pull requests for correctness, security, accessibility, maintainability, tests, and edge cases. Use when users request a critical code review, want a guided walkthrough of findings, need implementer-facing feedback, or want to prepare, create, or submit a GitHub pull request review.
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
second-pass-review
Independent audit of sanitized specs in workspace/output/. Three parallel LLM-based reviewer roles check structural leakage, content contamination, and behavioral completeness. Run AFTER Layer 5 sanitization, BEFORE implementation handoff.