Claude Code Guide is a reference collection for configuring and using Claude Code, Anthropic’s command-line coding agent. Developers use it to learn commands, skills, agents, MCP, automation, security, integrations, and troubleshooting. Its catalogue add-ons provide many of the documented skills and agents.
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/zebbern/claude-code-guide/secure-code-reviewnpx skills add zebbern/claude-code-guide --skill secure-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zebbern/claude-code-guideWrote 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/zebbern/claude-code-guide/secure-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zebbern/claude-code-guide/secure-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zebbern/claude-code-guide/secure-code-review.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 | $0.00086 | $0.04347 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00043 | $0.02174 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00869 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00435 |
Grade B, and why
secure-code-review scanned grade B with 3 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 yesterday.
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.
Cloud metadata endpointmediumServer-side request forgery
One request to 169.254.169.254 can return temporary IAM credentials.
- [ ] Is the cloud metadata address blocked (169.254.169.254)? Downgraded: this mod is about security review, or the phrase is quoted, so it is likely naming the pattern rather than instructing it.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
response = requests.get(url) Runs shell commandslowCapability
Expected in a hook, worth knowing in a rule or an instructions file.
- [ ] Are there `os.system()` or `subprocess.call(shell=True)` calls that concatenate user input? How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 572 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
OWASP Top 10 Code Security Review Checklist
A systematic security review based on the OWASP Top 10 (2021) standard. Each item includes: vulnerability description, typical vulnerable code, inspection checkpoints, and remediation examples. Designed for security-focused code review of web applications.
Usage
Provide the code files or code snippets to review, and specify which OWASP categories to check (or request a full review) to receive an item-by-item audit report.
Example prompts:
- "Check this code for SQL injection risks"
- "Run a full OWASP Top 10 security review on this project"
- "Does this API endpoint have any SSRF vulnerabilities?"
Quick Reference
| ID | Category | Key Check |
|---|---|---|
| A01 | Broken Access Control | Does every endpoint verify the current user's identity? Can users access others' data by changing IDs? |
| A02 | Cryptographic Failures | Are passwords hashed with bcrypt/argon2? Are secrets hardcoded? |
| A03 | Injection | String-concatenated SQL? shell=True? Unescaped template output? |
| A04 | Insecure Design | Is rate limiting in place? Can critical workflows be bypassed? |
| A05 | Security Misconfiguration | DEBUG enabled? Stack traces in error pages? Default credentials? |
| A06 | Vulnerable Components | Any CVEs from pip audit / npm audit? |
| A07 | Authentication Failures | Is JWT signature verified? Can tokens be revoked? Is MFA available? |
| A08 | Integrity Failures | Any pickle.loads deserializing untrusted data? |
| A09 | Logging & Monitoring Failures | Are plaintext passwords in logs? Are failed logins recorded? |
| A10 | SSRF | Are user-supplied URLs filtered against internal IPs? |
Review Process SOP
Core principle: prefer false positives over missed true positives.
- Define scope — Identify the files, modules, or code snippets to review
- Full coverage check — Scan through A01-A10 sequentially. Every item must appear in the report (mark items with no findings as pass). The default behavior is to only report issues found — this process requires full coverage to ensure nothing is missed
- Risk classification — Label each finding:
- RED High: Directly exploitable (RCE, SQL injection, SSRF reaching internal networks, plaintext password storage)
- YELLOW Medium: Exploitable under specific conditions (missing rate limiting, weak password policy, static tokens)
- GREEN Low: Defense-in-depth gap with no direct exploitation path (missing security headers, insufficient logging)
- Every finding must include ready-to-use fix code (actual code, not just a description). Reference specific
file:line_number - Output the review report — Use the template below, findings sorted by severity descending, with a prioritized remediation list at the end
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.
- yesterday First seen · 572 lines · 86 tokens per session scan B d3c9fac00e49
secure-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository zebbern/claude-code-guide (4,600 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 86 tokens to every session and 4,347 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it B with 3 findings (cloud metadata endpoint, makes network calls, runs shell commands). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
business-investment-advisor
../../../finance/business-investment-advisor/skills/business-investment-advisor/SKILL.md.
a11y-audit
../../../engineering-team/a11y-audit/skills/a11y-audit/SKILL.md.
adversarial-reviewer
../../../engineering-team/skills/adversarial-reviewer/SKILL.md.
agent-memory
../../../engineering/agent-memory/skills/agent-memory/SKILL.md.
agile-product-owner
../../../product-team/agile-product-owner/skills/agile-product-owner/SKILL.md.
app-store-optimization
../../../marketing-skill/skills/app-store-optimization/SKILL.md.