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 mgiovani/cc-arsenal --skill review-securitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mgiovani/cc-arsenalWrote 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/mgiovani/cc-arsenal/review-security)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mgiovani/cc-arsenal/review-security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mgiovani/cc-arsenal/review-security/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/mgiovani/cc-arsenal/review-security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mgiovani/cc-arsenal/review-security.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 | $0.00157 | $0.02208 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00063 | $0.00883 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00031 | $0.00442 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00221 |
Grade A, and why
review-security 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 22d 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 — 210 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Security Review
Static security analysis targeting OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities and common language-specific security patterns. This skill only analyzes: it identifies vulnerabilities, explains why each one matters, and suggests fix approaches, all without touching the code.
OWASP renumbers and re-titles its Top 10 categories periodically. Before labeling any finding with a category code (A01, A02, ...), do a quick web check against owasp.org/Top10/ to confirm the codes below are still current; if they've shifted, use the current codes and note the change in the report instead of silently reusing stale labels.
Anti-hallucination guidelines
| Rule | Detail |
|---|---|
| Read before claiming | Never report a vulnerability in code that hasn't been read |
| Evidence-based findings | Every finding references a specific file path and line number |
| Pattern matching | Use Grep to find actual vulnerable patterns, not hypothetical ones |
| No invented CVEs | Only reference real vulnerabilities when providing context |
| Quantifiable results | Statistics come from counting actual matches, never estimates |
| No false positives | Verify each finding matches a documented vulnerability pattern |
| Scope verification | Only scan files within the specified scope (PR/commit/all) |
Scan Workflow
Phase 0: Determine Scan Scope
Parse arguments to determine what to scan:
<pr_number>: scan only files changed in PR (e.g. "123", "#123")<commit_sha>: scan only files changed in commit (e.g. "abc123")--allor no args: scan entire codebase--scope [web|api|mobile|backend|frontend]: focus on specific vulnerability categories
If a PR or commit is specified, use Bash to get changed files:
# For PR
gh pr view <pr_number> --json files --jq '.files[].path'
# For commit
git diff-tree --no-commit-id --name-only -r <commit_sha>
Phase 1: Project Technology Discovery
Use an Explore agent (model: haiku) to identify the stack: languages/frameworks from
package.json/pyproject.toml/pom.xml/go.mod, existing security tooling
(.pre-commit-config.yaml, SAST steps in .github/workflows), web framework, DB/ORM patterns,
auth patterns (JWT/OAuth/sessions), and any SECURITY.md. Return a stack summary with the
vulnerability categories to prioritize. No Task tool available? Skip the agent: read those
same files and grep those same paths yourself, inline, then note the stack directly.
What ships with it
4 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.
- 22d ago Changed · -1 lines 91c40132ef66
- 1mo ago Changed · +6 lines 983094a42411
- 1mo ago Changed · -11 tokens per session 7a09ba3aaed2
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines 754592f0a7fd
- 1mo ago First seen · 204 lines · 168 tokens per session scan A 64b5e651fd9b
review-security is a skill published in the GitHub repository mgiovani/cc-arsenal (8 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 157 tokens to every session and 2,208 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
basic-skill
Summarize small CSV files and identify the highest revenue month.
trace-and-isolate
Applies systematic tracing and isolation techniques to pinpoint exactly where a bug originates in code. Use when a bug is hard to locate, code is not working as expected, an error or crash appears with unclear cause, a regression was introduced between recent commits, or you need to narrow down which component…
verification-gates
Creates explicit validation checkpoints (verification gates) between project phases to catch errors early and ensure quality before proceeding. Use when the user asks about quality gates, milestone checks, phase transitions, approval steps, go/no-go decision points, or preventing cascading errors across a multi-step…
testing-anti-patterns
Reviews test code to identify and fix common testing anti-patterns including flaky tests, over-mocking, brittle assertions, test interdependency, and hidden test logic. Flags bad patterns, explains the specific defect, and provides corrected implementations. Use when reviewing test code, debugging intermittent or…
test-patterns
Applies proven testing patterns — Arrange-Act-Assert (AAA), Given-When-Then, Test Data Builders, Object Mother, parameterized tests, fixtures, spies, and test doubles — to help write maintainable, reliable, and readable test suites. Use when the user asks about writing unit tests, integration tests, or end-to-end…
handoff-protocols
Manages work transitions between team members or agents by creating structured handoff documents, summarizing project status, documenting key decisions, blockers, and open questions, and generating onboarding briefs. Use when someone needs to hand off, hand over, or transition a project; pass work to another person or…