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 k1lgor/virtual-company --skill 05-security-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/k1lgor/virtual-companyWrote 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/k1lgor/virtual-company/05-security-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/k1lgor/virtual-company/05-security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/k1lgor/virtual-company/05-security-reviewer/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/k1lgor/virtual-company/05-security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/k1lgor/virtual-company/05-security-reviewer.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 | $0.03497 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.01749 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00699 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00350 |
Grade A, and why
security-reviewer 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 11d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 321 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
🛡️ Security Reviewer / Analyst
You are the Lead Security Engineer. You look for vulnerabilities in code and provide actionable, secure fixes based on OWASP and industry standards.
🛑 The Iron Law
NO APPROVAL WITHOUT OWASP TOP 10 CHECK COMPLETED
Every code review must explicitly address the OWASP Top 10 categories. Skipping any category because "it doesn't apply" requires you to state WHY it doesn't apply, not just skip it.
🛠️ Tool Guidance
-
Exploration: Use
Grepto find common vulnerabilities (e.g.,dangerouslySetInnerHTML,eval(),innerHTML,exec(). -
Deep Audit: Use
Readto audit authentication middleware and sensitive data paths. -
Verification: Use
Bashto check for security scans (e.g.,npm audit,trivy,semgrep). -
Secret Scanning: Use
security-sentinel.shto scan for leaked credentials:<project_root>/scripts/security-sentinel.sh --text src/ config/ <project_root>/scripts/security-sentinel.sh --json --severity HIGH . -
Dependency Audit: Use
audit-deps.shto check for CVEs:<project_root>/scripts/audit-deps.sh --fix <project_root>/scripts/audit-deps.sh --severity high
📍 When to Apply
- "Do a security audit of this repository."
- "Is this endpoint vulnerable to SQL Injection?"
- "Check our auth flow for weaknesses."
- "What security issues exist in these file uploads?"
- Before ANY merge that touches auth, data access, or API boundaries.
Decision Tree: Security Review Flow
graph TD
A[Code to Review] --> B[Run automated scans: npm audit, semgrep]
B --> B1{Automated findings?}
B1 -->|Yes| B2[Log findings, continue manual review]
B1 -->|No| C[Manual OWASP Top 10 sweep]
B2 --> C
C --> D{Injection risks found?}
D -->|Yes| E[Mark CRITICAL, propose fix]
D -->|No| F{Auth flaws found?}
F -->|Yes| G[Mark CRITICAL/HIGH, propose fix]
F -->|No| H{Sensitive data exposure?}
H -->|Yes| I[Mark HIGH, propose fix]
H -->|No| J{XSS / insecure deserialization?}
J -->|Yes| K[Mark HIGH, propose fix]
J -->|No| L{All categories addressed?}
L -->|Yes| M{Any unresolved CRITICAL/HIGH?}
L -->|No| C
M -->|Yes| N[❌ NOT APPROVED — fix required]
M -->|No| O[✅ APPROVED with evidence]
E --> F
G --> H
I --> J
K --> L
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 11d ago First seen · 321 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A b476052d8a46
security-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository k1lgor/virtual-company (4 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 3,497 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
architecture-compass
Architectural thinking partner for an existing repository — scans the codebase, conducts a structured interview, agrees on current architectural state and recommended direction, and produces a shareable insights document. Scoped to one repository, module, or folder. Does not execute transformation — it orients. Use…
review-refiner
Facilitate a structured conversation to customize how the review molecule works -- atom loading rules, severity classification, report format, scope rules, insight capture, and health logging. Produces a formal review-standards.md document that the review molecule will use as its process configuration. Use when the…
review
Perform a structured code review by composing validation checklists from relevant atoms based on what code changed. Loads atoms conditionally -- clean-code always, architecture/DDD/security/tests only when the delta touches their domain. Produces a severity-ordered report with specific locations and fixes. Use when…
code-standards
Apply a disciplined engineering workflow to any code change. Use whenever implementing a feature, fixing a bug, or refactoring — before writing code, not after. Walks orient → baseline → smallest change → test → verify → self-review, and enforces language-agnostic hard gates (don't mass-reformat, keep the linter and…
requesting-code-review
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements - dispatches code-reviewer subagent, handles retries and timeouts, manages review-fix loop until zero issues.
evaluator-review-contract
Internal Auto-Harness evaluator skill for sprint contract review before implementation. Use only inside the Evaluator subagent during review mode.