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 joaquimscosta/arkhe-claude-plugins --skill security-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/joaquimscosta/arkhe-claude-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/joaquimscosta/arkhe-claude-plugins/security-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/joaquimscosta/arkhe-claude-plugins/security-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/joaquimscosta/arkhe-claude-plugins/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/joaquimscosta/arkhe-claude-plugins/security-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/joaquimscosta/arkhe-claude-plugins/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 | $0.00086 | $0.02591 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.01036 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00518 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00259 |
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 yesterday.
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 — 243 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Security Review
Identify HIGH-CONFIDENCE security vulnerabilities with real exploitation potential. Two-axis scoring (severity + confidence), OWASP 2025 aligned, false positive filtered.
Parse Arguments
Output Path Configuration:
- If
$ARGUMENTScontains--post-to-pr: enable GitHub PR posting (Phase 6) - Remaining non-flag arguments: use as output directory (default:
./reviews/security/)
Example usage:
/review:security-review— local report to./reviews/security//review:security-review audits/sec— local report toaudits/sec//review:security-review --post-to-pr— local report + post to GitHub PR/review:security-review audits/sec --post-to-pr— both
Git Analysis
GIT STATUS:
!`git status`
FILES MODIFIED:
!`git diff --name-only origin/HEAD...`
COMMITS:
!`git log --no-decorate origin/HEAD...`
DIFF CONTENT:
!`git diff --merge-base origin/HEAD`
Review the complete diff above. Focus ONLY on security implications newly added by this PR.
Objective
- Only flag issues where you have HIGH confidence of actual exploitability
- Skip theoretical issues, style concerns, or low-impact findings
- Prioritize vulnerabilities leading to unauthorized access, data breaches, or system compromise
- Use two-axis scoring: severity (impact) and confidence (accuracy) are independent
Security Categories (OWASP 2025 Aligned)
| Category | Key Checks | OWASP |
|---|---|---|
| Access Control | IDOR, privilege escalation, SSRF, CORS, CSRF, path traversal | A01 |
| Security Misconfiguration | Default credentials, debug endpoints, cloud misconfig, XXE | A02 |
| Supply Chain | Dependency confusion, unpinned actions, vulnerable deps, CI/CD risks | A03 |
| Cryptographic Failures | Hardcoded keys, weak algorithms, insecure randomness, cert validation | A04 |
| Injection | SQLi, command injection, XSS, template injection, NoSQL injection | A05 |
| Auth & Session | Authentication bypass, JWT vulns, session management, missing MFA | A07 |
| Deserialization & Integrity | Unsafe deserialization, prototype pollution, unsigned updates | A08 |
| Error Handling | Fail-open patterns, exception swallowing, verbose error disclosure | A10 |
| API Security | BOLA, mass assignment, shadow APIs, missing rate limiting | API Top 10 |
| LLM/AI Security | Prompt injection, unsafe output handling, excessive agency | LLM Top 10 |
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.
- yesterday First seen · 243 lines · 86 tokens per session scan A 8845791f28e9
security-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository joaquimscosta/arkhe-claude-plugins (21 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 86 tokens to every session and 2,591 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 2026-10-16.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Review code for security, quality, and maintainability with structured feedback.
pr-creator
Create well-structured pull requests with proper descriptions and labels.
audit
Read-only quality gate that audits already-built work against its stated requirement and Definition of Done before it is allowed to move to 2done/. Produces a severity-ranked decision proposal (BLOCKER/MAJOR/MINOR/NIT) with evidence; the judgement never edits, only a recorded post-audit step may fix small findings.…
pr-vetting
Use when the user wants to thoroughly investigate, vet, review, or security-scan a pull request before deciding how to handle it - especially PRs from external or unknown contributors. Runs a parallel multi-agent investigation (technical, security, value/fit, contributor reputation) and merges the findings into one…
audit-project
Audits the Claude Code configuration of a project against the dotforge template. Generates a report with score and gaps.
dev-rc
The last gate before merge — QA, security audit, review and changelog, with objective pass conditions.