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 johnqtcg/awesome-skills --skill security-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/johnqtcg/awesome-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/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/security-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/security-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/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/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/security-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/security-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 271 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00164 | $0.05960 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00082 | $0.02980 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00033 | $0.01192 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00596 |
Grade A, and why
security-review scanned grade A 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 today.
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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash(git diff*), Bash(go vet*), Bash(go build*), Bash(go test -race*), Bash(gosec*), Bash(govulncheck*), Bash(semgrep*), Bash(npm audit*), Bash(curl*), Bash(mvn dependency:tree*), Bash(mv How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 447 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Security Review
Find exploitable risks early, provide concrete fixes, and keep recommendations practical for engineering delivery.
Quick Reference
| If you need to… | Go to |
|---|---|
| Choose review depth (Lite / Standard / Deep) | §Review Depth Selection |
| Run a fast scan (skip Gate B/C/E) | Lite depth → Load references/scenario-checklists.md only |
| Run a full review with all gates (Go) | Standard/Deep → Load references/go-secure-coding.md + references/scenario-checklists.md |
| Review Node.js / TypeScript code | Load references/lang-nodejs.md + references/scenario-checklists.md |
| Review Java / Spring code | Load references/lang-java.md + references/scenario-checklists.md |
| Review Python / FastAPI / Django code | Load references/lang-python.md + references/scenario-checklists.md |
| Calibrate severity (P0–P3) or confidence | Load references/severity-calibration.md |
| Suppress a false positive correctly | §False-Positive Suppression Rules |
| Send any request / run a scanner against a live target | §Active Verification Authorization Gate (default deny) |
Review Principles
- Prioritize exploitable risk over style issues.
- Ground every claim in code/config/runtime evidence.
- Distinguish confirmed vulnerabilities from hypotheses.
- Provide reproducible proof for high-risk findings.
- Map findings to standards for auditability.
- If evidence is missing, state
Not found in repo. - Fail closed: if a mandatory gate cannot be executed, state it explicitly and do not claim full coverage.
- Authorization before action: static review always; touching a running system only under §Active Verification Authorization Gate. Default deny.
- Execution integrity: never present a command you did not run as if you had. Label unexecuted reproducers explicitly.
Evidence Confidence (Mandatory)
Each finding must include one confidence label:
confirmed: vulnerable path proven by code and/or reproducible execution.likely: strong evidence with one missing runtime assumption.suspected: weak evidence requiring additional data.
What ships with it
60 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.
- references/anti-examples.md 2.9 KB
- references/authorization-and-policy.md 16 KB
- references/go-secure-coding.md 38 KB
- references/lang-java.md 12 KB
- references/lang-nodejs.md 12 KB
- references/lang-python.md 25 KB
- references/output-contract.md 4.7 KB
- references/reference-index.md 6.2 KB
- references/report-schema.json 21 KB
- references/scenario-checklists.md 7.0 KB
- references/security-review.md 5.1 KB
- references/severity-calibration.md 7.2 KB
- scripts/eval_live.sh 3.2 KB runs code
- scripts/report_validator.py 29 KB runs code
- scripts/run_regression.sh 4.5 KB runs code
- scripts/sync_coverage_counts.py 4.4 KB runs code
- scripts/tests/COVERAGE.md 12 KB
- scripts/tests/examples/go/go.mod 833 B
- scripts/tests/examples/go/pathguard_test.go 5.9 KB
- scripts/tests/examples/go/pathguard.go 1.8 KB
- scripts/tests/examples/go/ssrf_test.go 2.4 KB
- scripts/tests/examples/go/ssrf.go 1.8 KB
- scripts/tests/examples/go/xmlfacts_test.go 2.8 KB
- scripts/tests/examples/node/security_examples.js 2.2 KB runs code
- scripts/tests/examples/node/security_examples.test.js 2.3 KB runs code
- scripts/tests/examples/python/jinja_ssti_facts_test.py 6.3 KB runs code
- scripts/tests/examples/python/xml_facts_test.py 18 KB runs code
- scripts/tests/forward_eval/idor_true_positive/bad.md 729 B
- scripts/tests/forward_eval/idor_true_positive/good.md 3.6 KB
- scripts/tests/forward_eval/java_deserialization_true_positive/bad.md 2.3 KB
- scripts/tests/forward_eval/java_deserialization_true_positive/good.md 10 KB
- scripts/tests/forward_eval/java_xxe_hardened_false_positive/bad.md 2.3 KB
- scripts/tests/forward_eval/java_xxe_hardened_false_positive/good.md 6.6 KB
- scripts/tests/forward_eval/LIVE_RESULTS.md 25 KB
- scripts/tests/forward_eval/nodejs_execfile_false_positive/bad.md 2.1 KB
- scripts/tests/forward_eval/nodejs_execfile_false_positive/good.md 5.3 KB
- scripts/tests/forward_eval/nodejs_prototype_pollution_true_positive/bad.md 1.2 KB
- scripts/tests/forward_eval/nodejs_prototype_pollution_true_positive/good.md 6.1 KB
- scripts/tests/forward_eval/python_pickle_true_positive/bad.md 1.4 KB
- scripts/tests/forward_eval/python_pickle_true_positive/good.md 5.3 KB
- scripts/tests/forward_eval/python_stdlib_xxe_false_positive/bad.md 2.9 KB
- scripts/tests/forward_eval/python_stdlib_xxe_false_positive/good.md 7.7 KB
- scripts/tests/forward_eval/README.md 9.2 KB
- scripts/tests/forward_eval/ssrf_false_positive/bad.md 1.4 KB
- scripts/tests/forward_eval/ssrf_false_positive/good.md 3.6 KB
- scripts/tests/golden/001_idor_missing_authz.json 689 B
- scripts/tests/golden/002_parameterized_sql_fp.json 469 B
- scripts/tests/golden/003_hardcoded_secret.json 835 B
- scripts/tests/golden/004_insecure_skip_verify_test_fp.json 618 B
- scripts/tests/golden/005_sql_injection_concat.json 607 B
- scripts/tests/golden/006_math_rand_non_security_fp.json 563 B
- scripts/tests/golden/007_toctou_balance_race.json 832 B
- scripts/tests/golden/008_resp_body_not_closed.json 749 B
- scripts/tests/golden/009_jwt_alg_none.json 595 B
- scripts/tests/golden/010_path_traversal.json 598 B
- scripts/tests/golden/011_dockerfile_root.json 600 B
- scripts/tests/golden/012_concurrent_map_write.json 855 B
- scripts/tests/golden/013_maxbytesreader_missing.json 647 B
- scripts/tests/golden/014_text_template_xss.json 645 B
- scripts/tests/golden/015_open_redirect.json 596 B
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.
- today Changed · +36 lines bc428aa06ada
- 11d ago First seen · 411 lines · 164 tokens per session scan A ff636eb7630b
security-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository johnqtcg/awesome-skills (30 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 164 tokens to every session and 5,960 once invoked, about $0.0008 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
verify-implementation
A workflow that runs a project’s verification skills to produce a report on coding patterns, architecture rules, and project conventions. It is intended for work after implementation, before a pull request, or during code review.
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…
frontend-code-review
Trigger when the user requests a review of frontend files (e.g., .tsx, .ts, .js). Support both pending-change reviews and focused file reviews while applying the checklist rules.
security-compliance
Guides security professionals in implementing defense-in-depth security architectures, achieving compliance with industry frameworks (SOC2, ISO27001, GDPR, HIPAA), conducting threat modeling and risk assessments, managing security operations and incident response, and embedding security throughout the SDLC.
stride-analysis-patterns
Apply STRIDE methodology to systematically identify threats. Use when analyzing system security, conducting threat modeling sessions, or creating security documentation.
cache-components
Expert guidance for Next.js Cache Components and Partial Prerendering (PPR). PROACTIVE ACTIVATION: Use this skill automatically when working in Next.js projects that have cacheComponents: true in their next.config.ts/next.config.js. When this config is detected, proactively apply Cache Components patterns and best…