security-check
Skill15 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Quick security checklist for a PR or set of files (secrets, input, logging). Use proactively for security reviews.
- Reads credentials
30 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- cecewu3/agent-trading-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- simonasrazm/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- MagicJosh/rastheir own version, first seen Nov 2, 2026
- pablopetr/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- aws-samples/sample-agentic-coding-harness-benchmarkstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- nortonx/ai-tooling-freetheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use learn and code-review.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
genomewalkerSkilllearn
Learn from web sources, generate SKILL.md, and store key patterns in soul memory. Trigger keywords: learn, skill-gen, web-learn, documentation, tutorial.
Also in 3 projects that use this
GoogleSkillcode-review
Adversarial systems, concurrency, memory-model, and architecture code review protocol. Use this skill whenever asked to review code, PRs, diffs, or branches in Filament.
Also in 5 projects that use this
Other versions30 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 30
- alibaba/loongcollector★ 2.2ksame name
- gocronx-team/gocron★ 808same name
- TermiX-official/cryptoclaw★ 100same name
- igmarin/rails-agent-skills★ 26same name
- aws-samples/sample-agentic-coding-harness-benchmarks★ 20same name
- Benkapner/claude-code-basecamp★ 17same name
- YehudaFrankel/clankbrain★ 16same name
- Nirusan/claude-config★ 7same name
- brunobracaioli/business_dossie★ 4same name
- simonasrazm/skills★ 4same name
20 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository21 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- public/llms-full.txtllms.txt
- public/llms.txtllms.txt
- add-componentSkill
- add-diagram-componentSkill
- add-languageSkill
- add-pageSkill
- ai-diff-reviewerSkill
- dailybotSkill
- deepworkplanSkill
- doc-editSkill
- fix-lintSkill
- git-commit-pushSkill
- pr-review-liteSkill
- quick-fixSkill
- refactor-safeSkill
- responsive-lighthouse-auditSkill
- translate-syncSkill
- type-fixSkill
- update-stylesSkill
- write-testsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
12 rules. 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 22 edited versions we read keep these.
8
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 18
Run a quick, checklist-based security pass on changed files or a PR: no hardcoded secrets, proper input handling, no sensitive data in …
- Distinctive: line 22
Does NOT perform full security audit
- Distinctive: line 23
Does NOT fix code (review only.
- Distinctive: line 24
Does NOT assess infrastructure security
- Very specific: line 25
Does NOT replace security-auditor for auth/crypto/data flows
- Distinctive: line 82
If any blocking or auth/data issues: recommend security-auditor agent
- Distinctive: line 110
When sensitive data handling is involved and issues found:
- Distinctive: line 130
Read-only; no code changes
- Distinctive: line 135
Escalate to security-auditor: if:
- Very specific: line 151
Build output: - Ensure docs/ doesn't contain sensitive data
- Very specific: line 152
API routes: - Check src/pages/api/ endpoints for data exposure
- Very specific: line 153
Environment variables: - Only PUBLIC_* vars available on client
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 22 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Skill: Security Check
Objective
Run a quick, checklist-based security pass on changed files or a PR: no hardcoded secrets, proper input handling, no sensitive data in logs, no obvious OWASP issues. Lightweight; for deeper review escalate to security-auditor agent. Follow docs/SECURITY.md.
Non-Goals
- Does NOT perform full security audit
- Does NOT fix code (review only; report findings)
- Does NOT assess infrastructure security
- Does NOT replace security-auditor for auth/crypto/data flows
Tier Classification
Tier: 1 - Light/Cheap
Reasoning: Checklist-based; read-only; pattern matching (secrets, sanitization). Escalate to security-auditor when issues found.
Inputs
Required Parameters
$TARGET: PR diff, or list of files to check (e.g., paths or "current PR")
Optional Parameters
$FOCUS: Focus area (default: all) — e.g., "secrets", "input", "logging"
Prerequisites
- Target files or PR diff are accessible
Steps
Step 1: Get Scope
- List changed files or read PR diff
Step 2: Run Checklist
Secrets & config:
- No hardcoded API keys, tokens, or passwords
- Secrets via environment variables (
.env) - No secrets in client-side code (Astro/Svelte)
- No secrets committed to repository
Input & sanitization:
- User input validated or sanitized where used
- No raw input in API responses without sanitization
- Search/filter inputs properly escaped
Logging:
- No sensitive data (tokens, PII) in log messages
- Console logs appropriate for static site context
Static site considerations:
- No sensitive data in build output
- API routes don't expose sensitive information
- Environment variables use proper PUBLIC_ prefix for client-side
Obvious risks:
- No eval() or unsafe dynamic code on user input
- No obvious XSS patterns in user-generated content
Step 3: Report
- List findings by severity (blocking / suggestion)
- If any blocking or auth/data issues: recommend security-auditor agent
Output Format
Success Output
## ✅ Security Check Complete
### Scope
{Files or PR checked}
### Checklist
- Secrets: ✅
- Input/sanitization: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
- Logging: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
- Static site risks: ✅
### Findings
**Blocking:** {count} — {brief list}
**Suggestions:** {count} — {brief list}
### Recommendation
{Pass / Request changes / Escalate to security-auditor}Escalation
When sensitive data handling is involved and issues found:
## 🔄 Escalate to security-auditor
### Reason
{Why deeper review is needed}
### Findings so far
- {Finding 1}
- {Finding 2}
### Next step
Run security-auditor agent for full review (docs/SECURITY.md).Guardrails
Scope Limits
- Read-only; no code changes
- Focus on checklist; for design/OWASP depth use security-auditor
Stop Conditions
Escalate to security-auditor if:
- Auth or user data handling involved
- Any blocking finding on secrets
- Complex data flow requiring deeper analysis
Definition of Done
- Checklist completed for target scope
- Findings listed with severity
- Clear recommendation (pass / request changes / escalate)
Static Site Specific Checks
For Astro static sites:
- Build output - Ensure
docs/doesn't contain sensitive data - API routes - Check
src/pages/api/endpoints for data exposure - Environment variables - Only
PUBLIC_*vars available on client - Content - Methodology/spec/kit docs don't accidentally include sensitive info
Related
- security-auditor - Full security review
- pr-review-lite - General PR checklist
- docs/SECURITY.md - Security standards
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

