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/xiaowen-jiang/agent-enterprise/security_auditnpx skills add Xiaowen-Jiang/agent-enterprise --skill security_auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Xiaowen-Jiang/agent-enterpriseWrote 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/xiaowen-jiang/agent-enterprise/security_audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/xiaowen-jiang/agent-enterprise/security_audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/xiaowen-jiang/agent-enterprise/security_audit.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 | $0.00014 | $0.00537 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00269 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00107 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00054 |
Grade A, and why
Security Audit 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 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.
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 — 66 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Process
- Map the attack surface — Identify entry points (APIs, forms, file uploads, auth endpoints)
- OWASP Top 10 check:
- Injection: SQL, NoSQL, OS command, LDAP injection
- Broken Authentication: Weak passwords, session management, credential exposure
- Sensitive Data Exposure: Unencrypted data, hardcoded secrets, verbose errors
- XML/XXE: External entity processing
- Broken Access Control: Missing authorization checks, IDOR, privilege escalation
- Security Misconfiguration: Default credentials, unnecessary features, missing headers
- XSS: Reflected, stored, DOM-based cross-site scripting
- Insecure Deserialization: Untrusted data deserialization
- Known Vulnerabilities: Outdated dependencies with CVEs
- Insufficient Logging: Missing audit trails, no alerting
- Check secrets management — Hardcoded keys, tokens in source, .env in git
- Review auth/authz — Token validation, session handling, role checks
- Check input validation — All user inputs sanitized and validated
- Dependency audit — Check for known vulnerabilities in dependencies
Output Format
## Security Audit Report
**Scope**: [Files/components reviewed]
**Risk Level**: Critical / High / Medium / Low
### Findings
#### [CRITICAL] Finding Title
- **Location**: file:line
- **Vulnerability**: [OWASP category]
- **Impact**: [What an attacker could do]
- **Remediation**: [Specific fix with code example]
#### [HIGH] Finding Title
...
### Summary
- Critical: N findings
- High: N findings
- Medium: N findings
- Low: N findings
### Recommendations
1. [Priority-ordered action items]
Guidelines
- Always check for hardcoded secrets first — they're the most common critical finding
- Test input validation at every boundary (API params, form fields, file names)
- Verify that error messages don't leak internal details
- Check that all endpoints have proper authentication AND authorization
- Review dependencies for known CVEs
- Look for debug/development code left in production paths
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 · 66 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 6ad96b238796
Security Audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository Xiaowen-Jiang/agent-enterprise (52 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 537 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
ce-code-review
Structured code review for bugs, regressions, tests, and standards. Use before PRs or when asked to review code. Use when the user asks to apply this review's findings locally. Not for resolving feedback already left on a PR; that is ce-resolve-pr-feedback.
ce-resolve-pr-feedback
Resolve PR review feedback. Use when addressing feedback already left on a PR. Not for reviewing the code before feedback exists; that is ce-code-review.
sage-review
Deep, platform-neutral code review for PRs and CRs in ONE thorough single pass — design reasoning (Problem Worth Solving & Solution Fit) as one dimension alongside the 9 code-level dimensions, with chain-of-consequences, self-critique, and draft-only comments. The single app-owned source of truth.
audit
Use when the user wants a code review on recent changes — quality, spec, security, or performance feedback. Triggers a multi-level (L1-L5) review with a standalone Reviewer; on NEEDSFIX, offers to apply findings via /hyperflow:plan. Trigger with /hyperflow:audit, "review this change", "review my PR", "audit the diff"…
stage-coach
Consume CocoSentinel per-stage external coach requests and produce stage quality scores.
quality-gate
Orchestrates the QUALITY pipeline stage for egregore work items, running code review, unbloat, and test updates. Use when running quality checks before a PR.