Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to warpdotdev/oz-for-oss. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/warpdotdev/oz-for-oss/main/.agents/skills/security-review-pr/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/warpdotdev/oz-for-ossWrote 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/warpdotdev/oz-for-oss/security-review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/warpdotdev/oz-for-oss/security-review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/warpdotdev/oz-for-oss/security-review-pr/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/warpdotdev/oz-for-oss/security-review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/warpdotdev/oz-for-oss/security-review-pr.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Tool Misuse · line 52 Tool defaults are unsafe or overly permissive (e.g. disabled TLS verification, no authentication, world-writable permissions). Unsafe defaults widen the attack surface.Fix: Override unsafe defaults with secure settings (verify=True, auth required, restrictive permissions). Review and harden all tool configurations.
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 | $0.00066 | $0.01650 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00660 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00330 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00165 |
Grade A, and why
security-review-pr 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 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
- Fetching scripts over HTTP or piping curl to a shell inside build or CI steps. How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 117 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Security Review PR Skill
Audit the current pull request for security concerns and fold any findings into the same review.json produced by the base review-pr skill.
Goal
Provide a focused security pass on top of the general PR review. This is a supplement to review-pr, not a separate output. Findings must be merged into the single combined review.json so reviewers receive one cohesive review.
Inputs
- The working directory is the PR branch checkout.
- The workflow usually provides an annotated diff in
pr_diff.txt. - The workflow usually provides the PR description in
pr_description.md. - Focus on the files and lines changed by this PR.
- Default behavior: do not post comments or reviews to GitHub directly.
When to apply this skill
- Apply on code PRs whenever
review-pris applied. - Do not apply on spec-only PRs handled by
review-spec. - Skip the skill entirely when no changed file introduces code or configuration that touches the concerns below; it is better to stay silent than to manufacture findings.
- Do not duplicate findings the base
review-prpass will already raise. If the base review would naturally catch an issue, leave it there rather than re-reporting it from the security pass.
Security concerns to audit
Evaluate each changed hunk against the following concerns. Treat the list as a checklist, not a ceiling — flag other clearly security-relevant issues when they appear.
Input validation and untrusted data
- User-supplied or network-supplied input used without validation, length limits, or type checks.
- Deserialization of untrusted data (e.g.
pickle,yaml.load,eval,Function,JSON.parsefeeding into a command). - Path traversal risk: user input concatenated into filesystem paths without normalization or an allowlist.
- SSRF risk: user-controlled URLs passed to outbound HTTP clients without scheme or host restrictions.
- Unbounded resource use driven by untrusted input (memory, loops, regex with catastrophic backtracking).
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 · 117 lines · 66 tokens per session scan A 34d11ddacfdf
security-review-pr is a skill published in the GitHub repository warpdotdev/oz-for-oss (312 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 66 tokens to every session and 1,650 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
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"…
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…
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…
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…