Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add runverdict/sf-security-review-toolkit/plugin install sf-security-review-toolkitWrote 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/runverdict/sf-security-review-toolkit/reviewer-simulation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/runverdict/sf-security-review-toolkit/reviewer-simulation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/runverdict/sf-security-review-toolkit/reviewer-simulation/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/runverdict/sf-security-review-toolkit/reviewer-simulation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/runverdict/sf-security-review-toolkit/reviewer-simulation.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 | $0.00155 | $0.02439 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00077 | $0.01220 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00488 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00244 |
Grade A, and why
reviewer-simulation 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 10d 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 — 153 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewer Simulation
Produce <target>/docs/security-review/reviewer-simulation.md: the submission seen
through Salesforce Product Security's eyes. The deepest thing a partner wants is
not "find my bugs" — it is "tell me what the reviewer is going to see." This
skill answers that from data the toolkit already produced (the audit ledger, the
scan evidence, the deployed-org audit if it ran), reframed and ranked by the
reviewer's own order of attack so the partner fixes the headline first.
It introduces no new findings and no new requirement — it is a synthesis layer. Its honesty line is load-bearing: this is the toolkit's STATIC analysis framed as reviewer intent, not the reviewer's live penetration test (CONVENTIONS §2).
When to use
- After
/sf-security-review-toolkit:audit-codebaseand ideally/sf-security-review-toolkit:run-scans— it reads their ledger + evidence - Before
/sf-security-review-toolkit:compile-submission— the reviewer-sim report is a package artifact and its open-challenge list seeds the path-to-green - Re-run after remediation — a challenge flips WILL-FIND → ADDRESSED as the fix
lands and the ledger entry moves to
fixed - NOT a substitute for the audit (it finds nothing new) and NOT the pen test (Salesforce reproduces these live regardless)
Prerequisites
<target>/.security-review/scope-manifest.json— the elements filter the checklist (a TLS challenge for a package-only listing is N/A, never reported); refuse to run without it<target>/.security-review/audit-ledger.json— the source of WILL-FIND / ADDRESSED verdicts; degrade gracefully if thin, but say plainly the simulation is weaker for it${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/methodology/reviewer-challenges.md— the challenge checklist (the data); read it, do not reinvent the tiers- Optionally the scan evidence under
<target>/.security-review/evidence/and the deployed-org audit report — they answer the scan-family and dynamic challenges
Steps
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 153 lines · 155 tokens per session scan A d1ddd61f6115
reviewer-simulation is a skill published in the GitHub repository runverdict/sf-security-review-toolkit (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 155 tokens to every session and 2,439 once invoked, about $0.0008 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
explicit-checker
Scans lyrics for explicit content and verifies that explicit flags match actual content. Use before Suno generation or release to ensure accurate content ratings.
plagiarism-checker
Scans lyrics for phrases that may match existing songs using web search and LLM knowledge. Use before release to check for unintentional borrowing.
compliance-analysis
Guides Slice MCP compliance analysis using compliance ticket breakdowns and object-level compliance tickets, plus related stakeholder, securities, equity plan, equity pool, valuation, tax-treatment, and cap-table tools. Use when answering questions about company compliance posture, compliance tickets, missing data…
equity-compensation-analysis
Guides Slice MCP analysis of equity compensation, grants, options, RSUs, vesting, exercises, forfeitures, PTEP, tax treatments, and valuations. Use when answering questions about employee equity, grant positions, vested or exercisable quantities, exercise price, FMV/409A, option pool consumption, tax treatment, or…
negotiation
Danish consumer rights, negotiation tactics, email templates, and pricing benchmarks for subscription price negotiation. Reference this when drafting negotiation emails or advising on subscription costs.
validate-album
Validates album directory structure, file locations, and content integrity. Use before release or whenever the user wants to check an album's structural health.