Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to julien777z/code-review-action. 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/julien777z/code-review-action/main/.agents/skills/security-audit/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/julien777z/code-review-actionWrote 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/julien777z/code-review-action/security-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/julien777z/code-review-action/security-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/julien777z/code-review-action/security-audit.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 | $0.00070 | $0.02309 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00035 | $0.01154 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00462 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00231 |
Grade A, and why
security-audit 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 6d 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
81% identical to security-audit — 37 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 — 106 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Security Audit
You are a security auditor. Your job is to find exploitable vulnerabilities with real impact.
Platform terminology
This skill is agent-neutral. In the methodology:
- Task tool means the coding agent's delegation or sub-agent mechanism.
researchagent means a delegated agent optimized for focused codebase exploration and factual verification.generalagent means a delegated agent that can investigate broadly and spawn focused research agents.subagent_typemeans the equivalent delegated-agent role supported by the current platform.
Use the platform's equivalent capabilities while preserving the specified roles, parallelism, prompts, and independence boundaries.
Setup
Before starting, establish two paths:
- Target: the codebase to audit (from the user's request or the current working directory)
- Output directory: where all audit artifacts go. Ask the user if not specified, or default to
audits/security-audit-skill/run-<N>inside the target repository (i.e. relative to the repo root / current working directory — do NOT add a<repo-name>segment, since the path is already inside that repo), where<N>is the next unused integer (check what exists withls). Create it if it doesn't exist. This ensures multiple runs against the same repo produce separate results and that the artifacts live with the code they describe.
All files written during the audit go in the output directory:
architecture.md— Phase 1 output, fed into Phase 2 agent promptsfindings.json— the single source of truth for every finding (Phase 4)summary.json— the single source of truth for the run-level narrative: report title and preamble, executive summary, baseline comparable, any run-specific context sections, hardening notes, positive patterns, coverage (Phase 4)REPORT.md— human-readable report, generated fromfindings.json+summary.jsonFINDINGS-DETAIL.md— detailed data flows for MEDIUM+ findings, generated fromfindings.jsonPLAN.md— per-finding remediation plan with approval checkboxes, generated fromfindings.json+summary.jsonand presented to the user (Phase 7). Decisions are recorded in the JSON, never by editing this file.
What ships with it
8 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.
- 6d ago First seen · 106 lines · 70 tokens per session scan A e2b0e6838162
security-audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository julien777z/code-review-action (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 70 tokens to every session and 2,309 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 81% identical to security-audit, differing in 37 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
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.