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 agentmods add skills/paultyng/skill-issue/review-securitynpx skills add paultyng/skill-issue --skill review-securitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/paultyng/skill-issueWrote 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/paultyng/skill-issue/review-security)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/paultyng/skill-issue/review-security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/paultyng/skill-issue/review-security.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 | $0.00054 | $0.03411 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00027 | $0.01706 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00682 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00341 |
Grade A, and why
review-security 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 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.
Reads agent configuration directorieslowAgent snooping
.claude/, .codex/, .gemini/ hold keys, settings and other credentials a mod has no legitimate need for.
- Findings must cite probed evidence (`path:line`, grep output, command result), not pattern-matched suspicion. Per `~/.claude/rules/probe-not-assume.md`. Downgraded: this mod is about security review, or the phrase is quoted, so it is likely naming the pattern rather than instructing it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 206 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Security Review
Structured security review producing actionable, prioritized findings with code-level references.
Workflow
1. Scope and explore
- Confirm scope with the user: full codebase, specific packages/directories, changed files only (PR or branch diff), or specific concern.
- Resolve scope to a file/package list. Based on what the user requested:
- Changed files (PR or branch): Run
git diff --name-only --diff-filter=d <base>...HEADto get changed files (default<base>ismain). If the user references a PR number, usegh pr diff <number> --name-onlyinstead. Filter to relevant file types (.go, config files). Derive affected Go packages from the file paths (unique parent directories containing.gofiles). - Explicit paths/packages: The user may specify directories (e.g.
internal/auth/), Go package patterns (e.g../internal/auth/...), or individual files. When given a directory or package pattern, include all files under it. Derive Go package paths for static analysis tool invocations. - Full codebase: No filtering. Explore everything (default).
- Changed files (PR or branch): Run
- Pass the resolved scope (file list and derived package paths) to all exploration and investigation subagents so they only read and analyze scoped files. Static analysis tools receive package paths; manual review subagents receive the file list.
- Explore the scoped code using parallel subagents (
subagent_type="explore"). Read all relevant source files, configs, and dependency manifests.
2. System overview
Produce a brief architecture summary covering:
- Services, ports, and transport (gRPC, HTTP, etc.)
- Authentication and authorization mechanisms
- Data stores and external dependencies
- Deployment model (if discernible)
3. Launch investigation subagents in parallel
Determine which subagents are applicable based on the scoped files:
- STRIDE Threat Model: applicable if code files (
.go,.rs,.ts,.tsx,.js,.jsx,.swift,.kt,.kts,.py,.rb) or infrastructure files (Dockerfiles, k8s manifests, Terraform, CI configs) exist in scope - OWASP Top 10 Analysis: applicable if code files or infrastructure files exist in scope
- Security Static Analysis: applicable if
.gofiles exist in scope - Dependency Evaluation: applicable if a dependency manifest (
go.mod,package.json,requirements.txt,pyproject.toml,Cargo.toml,Gemfile,mix.exs,composer.json) changed in scope. Diff the manifest for added/bumped dependencies and invokeevaluate-dependencyin review mode per dependency — this covers license, maintenance, tenure, and capability surface thatgovulncheck(a CVE scan of called functions) does not. Dedupe the vuln portion againstgovulncheckoutput in step 4.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 206 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 61c1cba5df7d
review-security is a skill published in the GitHub repository paultyng/skill-issue (9 stars, last pushed 25d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 3,411 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (reads agent configuration directories). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
chatcrystal-debug-recall
Recall ChatCrystal memories for debugging tasks involving failing tests, compiler errors, runtime exceptions, dependency issues, environment breakage, or performance regressions. Use when historical root causes, fixes, or pitfalls may accelerate diagnosis before proposing a fix.
verify
Fact-check claims encountered during reading — dates, names, events, citations. Use when encountering historical facts or disputed claims.
expert
Base expert skill.
megalinter-check
Collect MegaLinter lint errors for the current repository. Use when the user wants to know if the code passes linting, why the MegaLinter CI job fails, or before/after fixing lint errors. Two modes - watch a CI job (GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, Azure Pipelines, Bitbucket Pipelines) and parse its logs, or run MegaLinter…
alpha
Alpha skill.
assistant
Assistant — on any repo, scan README→docs→AGENTS→CONTRIBUTING→PR templates→task runners→devcontainer→CI→configs before code; cite sources; prefer AGENTS.md for agent behavior; portable across Cursor/Copilot/Claude; use agent-toolkit CLI when needed.