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 sembraniteam/claude-plugins --skill secure-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sembraniteam/claude-pluginsWrote 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/sembraniteam/claude-plugins/secure-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sembraniteam/claude-plugins/secure-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sembraniteam/claude-plugins/secure-code-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.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sembraniteam/claude-plugins/secure-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sembraniteam/claude-plugins/secure-code-review.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 | $0.00109 | $0.03526 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00044 | $0.01410 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00705 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00353 |
Grade A, and why
secure-code-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 1mo 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 — 247 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Secure Code Review Methodology
This skill provides the checklist, CWE mapping, and report template used by all security-auditor commands.
Additional Resources
references/baseline-suppression.md—.security-audit-baseline.jsonformat, matching rules, and how to fold suppressions into a report. Read this whenever a project has a baseline file, or when the user asks to suppress/accept a finding.references/sarif-output.md— SARIF 2.1.0 structure, field rules, and severity mapping for/audit-report --sarif. Read this only when generating SARIF output.references/remediation-protocol.md— Fix manifest schema, reviewer verdict values, the one-retry rule, and per-CWE minimal-fix examples used bysecurity-fixerandfix-reviewer. Read this when fixing or verifying findings (/audit-fix,/audit-verify), not during a plain audit.
OWASP Top 10 (2025) Checklist + Extended Categories
Work through each category. Mark each as: ✓ checked, ⚠ findings, or N/A (not applicable to this codebase).
OWASP Top 10
| # | Category | Key checks |
|---|---|---|
| A01 | Broken Access Control | Missing authz checks, IDOR, path traversal, CORS misconfiguration, privilege escalation, SSRF (outbound HTTP with user-controlled URL, missing allowlist, cloud metadata endpoint exposure) |
| A02 | Security Misconfiguration | Default credentials, unnecessary features enabled, verbose errors, missing security headers, overly-permissive cloud storage policies |
| A03 | Software Supply Chain Failures | Dependencies with known CVEs (verified via MCP, never from memory), untrusted/typosquatted packages, unsigned or unverified build artifacts/container images, missing dependency pinning or SBOM |
| A04 | Cryptographic Failures | Sensitive data in plaintext, weak algorithms, static keys/IVs, missing TLS |
| A05 | Injection | SQL, NoSQL, OS command, LDAP, XPath, template, expression language |
| A06 | Insecure Design | Missing rate limiting, insecure direct object references in design, trust boundary violations |
| A07 | Authentication Failures | Weak passwords, missing MFA support, insecure session management, credential stuffing exposure |
| A08 | Software or Data Integrity Failures | Unsigned updates/plugins, insecure deserialization, missing checksums/digital signatures, absent tamper-detection on critical data |
| A09 | Security Logging & Alerting Failures | No audit trail for sensitive ops, PII logged, log injection, missing alerting on suspicious activity |
| A10 | Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions | Verbose error messages leaking internals, fail-open logic on exception/error paths, unhandled timeouts, generic catch-alls masking security failures |
What ships with it
3 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 247 lines · 109 tokens per session scan A 95f002b1fc8b
secure-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository sembraniteam/claude-plugins (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 109 tokens to every session and 3,526 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…