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 woohyun212/security-skill --skill secure-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/woohyun212/security-skillWrote 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/woohyun212/security-skill/secure-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/woohyun212/security-skill/secure-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/woohyun212/security-skill/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/woohyun212/security-skill/secure-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/woohyun212/security-skill/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 | $0.00027 | $0.01391 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00556 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00278 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00139 |
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 — 132 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
What this skill does
Performs a structured security-focused code review across 10 domains: Input Validation, Authentication & Session Management, Authorization & Access Control, Injection Prevention, Cryptography, Error Handling & Logging, Data Protection, Dependency Security, Configuration Security, and Race Conditions. Maps findings to CWE identifiers and severity levels, and produces a report with remediation guidance and proof-of-concept notes.
When to use
- During pull request review for security-sensitive code changes (auth, payments, file handling, crypto)
- Before a production release to verify security controls are in place
- When onboarding a legacy codebase with no prior security review history
- When a bug bounty report or vulnerability disclosure references a code-level flaw requiring root cause analysis
Prerequisites
- No external tools required (checklist-based; use with source code access)
- Read access to the source code under review
- (Optional) Static analysis output from tools such as Semgrep, CodeQL, or Bandit to supplement manual review
- CWE reference: https://cwe.mitre.org
Inputs
| Item | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
REPO_PATH |
Path to the source code under review | /src/api/ |
LANGUAGE |
Primary language(s) of the codebase | Python, TypeScript, Go |
REVIEW_SCOPE |
Files, modules, or PR diff to review | auth/, payments/handler.py, PR #342 |
APP_TYPE |
Application type | web-api / cli / library / mobile |
DATA_SENSITIVITY |
Highest data classification handled | PII / PCI / internal / public |
Workflow
Step 1: Define Review Scope
Before starting the checklist, bound the review to avoid scope creep and ensure thoroughness within the defined boundary.
## Review Scope
- **Repository / Path**: <REPO_PATH>
- **Language(s)**: <LANGUAGE>
- **Files reviewed**: <list each file or PR diff>
- **Review date**: <YYYY-MM-DD>
- **Reviewer**: <name or agent>
- **Total lines reviewed**: <approximate>
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 132 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A f0f1c69647b1
secure-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository woohyun212/security-skill (22 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 1,391 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
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"…
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…
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…