django-access-review

django-access-review is a skill for Codex from OutlineDriven/outline-driven-development. It costs 44 tokens per session (1,186 once invoked), scanned A, original, Apache-2.0.

A read-only security review for Django and Django REST Framework applications, focusing on permissions and access to records.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to check endpoints, permission checks, tenant isolation, and object-level access rules, then report validated findings.
Why use it?
It helps find authorization failures such as IDOR, where changing an identifier lets someone access another user's data.

Skill for Codex

Written for Codex: agents/openai.yaml present.

Good fit Use it to check endpoints, permission checks, tenant isolation, and object-level access rules, then report validated findings.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/outlinedriven/outline-driven-development/django-access-review
Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add OutlineDriven/outline-driven-development --skill django-access-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/OutlineDriven/outline-driven-development

Made for: Codex.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for django-access-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/outlinedriven/outline-driven-development/django-access-review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/outlinedriven/outline-driven-development/django-access-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/outlinedriven/outline-driven-development/django-access-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/outlinedriven/outline-driven-development/django-access-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.

agentmods 80×15 button for django-access-review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/outlinedriven/outline-driven-development/django-access-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/outlinedriven/outline-driven-development/django-access-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 44 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,186 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe. Third-party audits
  • NVIDIA SkillSpector pass 7 Sept 2026
How audits are shown
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00044 $0.01186
Opus 5 $0.00022 $0.00593
Sonnet 5 $0.00009 $0.00237
Haiku 4.5 $0.00004 $0.00119

Measured 2d ago against content hash 58d56a7bd178, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-08, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

django-access-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 2d 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.

.devin/skills/django-access-review/SKILL.md · 46 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 46 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Django access control & IDOR review

Contract

Field Bound contract
Trigger User asks to review Django access control, IDOR, authorization, permissions, or tenant isolation
Authority Read-only. No file, VCS, credential, paid, published, deployed, or remote mutation. Investigate source via read/grep/glob only.
Side effect Reports access-control vulnerabilities as chat output; changes nothing
Done Validated IDOR/authz findings with evidence, impact, and fix suggestions returned

Inputs

Required: a Django or Django REST Framework codebase reachable as filesystem paths.

Optional: a specific component, endpoint, or model to scope the review. Without a scope, review the whole codebase and state which endpoints were and were not covered.

Procedure

Investigate rather than pattern-match. Every codebase enforces authorization differently; understand this implementation before judging it.

  1. Map the authorization model. Before judging any endpoint, determine where permission checks live (decorators, middleware, base classes, DRF permission_classes, custom mixins), how queries are scoped (custom managers, get_queryset() overrides, middleware-set context), and what the ownership model is (single user, organization/tenant, hierarchical, role-based). Use grep/glob over *.py to find permission_classes, @login_required, @permission_required, base view classes, managers, get_queryset, and ownership fields (owner, user_id, organization, tenant). Do not proceed to findings until the model is understood. Done when: the authorization model and ownership rules are understood.

  2. Map the attack surface. Identify models that hold user data and carry ownership fields or are addressed by ID in URLs, request bodies, or query params. For each, list the exposed operations: list, retrieve, create, update, delete, and custom actions. Done when: models and exposed operations are mapped.

  3. Ask the core question per endpoint. For each endpoint handling user data: "If I am User A and I know the ID of User B's resource, can I access, modify, or delete it?" Trace the data flow: (a) where the resource ID enters (URL path, query param, request body); (b) where that ID fetches data (the ORM query or DB call); (c) what checks exist between entry and fetch: is the query scoped to the current user, is there an explicit ownership check, is there an object-level permission, does a base class/mixin/manager enforce access. If no check is visible, check parent classes, middleware, managers, and URL-level decorators before concluding a gap. Done when: each endpoint has an end-to-end authorization trace.

Read the full file on GitHub · 46 lines

Files

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.

Changes

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.

  1. 2d ago Changed · -12 tokens per session 58d56a7bd178
  2. 5d ago First seen · 46 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A d81ab0f6dfde

Subscribe to this mod's changes

django-access-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository OutlineDriven/outline-driven-development (52 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 1,186 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 2026-09-03.