code-review-security
Skill0 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Security-focused code review checklist and automated scanning patterns. Use when reviewing pull requests for security issues, auditing authentication/authorization code, checking for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities, or validating input sanitization. Covers SQL injection prevention, XSS protection, CSRF tokens, authentication flow review, secrets detection, dependency vulnerability scanning, and secure coding patterns for Python (FastAPI) and React. Does NOT cover deployment security (use docker-best-practices) or incident handling (use incident-response).
- Reads credentials
- Deletes or force-pushes
8 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- aktsmm/Agent-Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- MaxMiksa/Autonomous-Companyword for word, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- opensite-ai/opensite-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- MaxMiksa/Auto-Companyword for word, first seen Oct 2, 2026
- whaojie797-design/Novera-AI-skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 25, 2026
- NikitaDmitrieff/auto-co-metaword for word, first seen Mar 6, 2026
Other versions8 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 5
- MaxMiksa/Auto-Company★ 3.2k100% same
- MaxMiksa/Autonomous-Company★ 3.2k100% same
- nicepkg/auto-company★ 188100% same
- NikitaDmitrieff/auto-co-meta★ 43100% same
- hieutrtr/ai1-skills★ 8100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- aktsmm/Agent-Skills★ 26same name
- opensite-ai/opensite-skills★ 15same name
- whaojie797-design/Novera-AI-skills★ 2same name
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 repository70 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- agent-browserSkill
- cold-email-sequence-generatorSkill
- community-led-growthSkill
- competitive-intelligence-analystSkill
- content-strategySkill
- deep-analysisSkill
- deep-reading-analystSkill
- deep-researchSkill
- devopsSkill
- email-sequenceSkill
- financial-unit-economicsSkill
- find-skillsSkill
- github-explorerSkill
- market-sizing-analysisSkill
- micro-saas-launcherSkill
- ph-community-outreachSkill
- premortemSkill
- pricing-strategySkill
- product-strategistSkill
- scientific-critical-thinkingSkill
- security-auditSkill
- senior-qaSkill
- seo-auditSkill
- seo-content-strategistSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- startup-business-modelsSkill
- startup-financial-modelingSkill
- tailwind-v4-shadcnSkill
- teamSkill
- user-persona-creationSkill
- user-research-synthesisSkill
- ux-audit-rethinkSkill
- web-scrapingSkill
- webshSkill
- agent-browserSkill
- code-review-securitySkill
- cold-email-sequence-generatorSkill
- community-led-growthSkill
- competitive-intelligence-analystSkill
- content-strategySkill
- deep-analysisSkill
- deep-reading-analystSkill
- deep-researchSkill
- devopsSkill
- email-sequenceSkill
- financial-unit-economicsSkill
- find-skillsSkill
- github-explorerSkill
- market-sizing-analysisSkill
- micro-saas-launcherSkill
- ph-community-outreachSkill
- premortemSkill
- pricing-strategySkill
- product-strategistSkill
- scientific-critical-thinkingSkill
- security-auditSkill
- senior-qaSkill
- seo-auditSkill
- seo-content-strategistSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
4
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 34
Output: Write findings to security-review.md with severity, file:line, description, and recommendations.
- Distinctive: line 36
Do NOT use this skill for:
- Distinctive: line 167
No account lockout after failed login attempts
- Distinctive: line 184
Default credentials or admin accounts
- Distinctive: line 367
When reporting security findings, use this format for consistency:
- Very specific: line 402
Use scripts/security-scan.py to perform AST-based scanning for common vulnerability patterns in Python code.
- Very specific: line 463
Write security findings to security-review.md:
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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
Code Review Security
When to Use
Activate this skill when:
- Reviewing pull requests for security vulnerabilities
- Auditing authentication or authorization code changes
- Reviewing code that handles user input, file uploads, or external data
- Checking for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities in new features
- Validating that secrets are not committed to the repository
- Scanning dependencies for known vulnerabilities
- Reviewing API endpoints that expose sensitive data
Output: Write findings to security-review.md with severity, file:line, description, and recommendations.
Do NOT use this skill for:
- Deployment infrastructure security (use
docker-best-practices) - Incident response procedures (use
incident-response) - General code quality review without security focus (use
pre-merge-checklist) - Writing implementation code (use
python-backend-expertorreact-frontend-expert)
Instructions
OWASP Top 10 Checklist
Review every PR against the OWASP Top 10 (2021 edition). Each category below includes specific checks for Python/FastAPI and React codebases.
A01: Broken Access Control
What to look for:
- Missing authorization checks on endpoints
- Direct object reference without ownership verification
- Endpoints that expose data without role-based filtering
- Missing
Depends()for auth on new routes
Python/FastAPI checks:
# BAD: No authorization check -- any authenticated user can access any user
@router.get("/users/{user_id}")
async def get_user(user_id: int, db: Session = Depends(get_db)):
return await user_repo.get(user_id)
# GOOD: Verify the requesting user owns the resource or is admin
@router.get("/users/{user_id}")
async def get_user(
user_id: int,
current_user: User = Depends(get_current_user),
db: Session = Depends(get_db),
):
if current_user.id != user_id and current_user.role != "admin":
raise HTTPException(status_code=403, detail="Forbidden")
return await user_repo.get(user_id)Review checklist:
- Every route has authentication (
Depends(get_current_user)) - Resource access is verified against the requesting user
- Admin-only endpoints check
role == "admin" - List endpoints filter by user ownership (unless admin)
- No IDOR (Insecure Direct Object Reference) vulnerabilities
A02: Cryptographic Failures
What to look for:
- Passwords stored in plaintext or with weak hashing
- Sensitive data in logs or error messages
- Hardcoded secrets, API keys, or tokens
- Weak JWT configuration
Python checks:
# BAD: Weak password hashing
import hashlib
password_hash = hashlib.md5(password.encode()).hexdigest()
# GOOD: Use bcrypt via passlib
from passlib.context import CryptContext
pwd_context = CryptContext(schemes=["bcrypt"], deprecated="auto")
password_hash = pwd_context.hash(password)
# BAD: Secret in code
SECRET_KEY = "my-super-secret-key-123"
# GOOD: Secret from environment
SECRET_KEY = os.environ["SECRET_KEY"]Review checklist:
- Passwords hashed with bcrypt (never MD5, SHA1, or plaintext)
- JWT secret loaded from environment, not hardcoded
- Sensitive data excluded from logs (passwords, tokens, PII)
- HTTPS enforced for all external communication
- No secrets in source code (check
.env.examplehas placeholders only)
A03: Injection
What to look for:
- Raw SQL queries with string interpolation
eval(),exec(),compile()with user inputsubprocesscalls withshell=True- Template injection
Python checks:
# BAD: SQL injection via string formatting
query = f"SELECT * FROM users WHERE email = '{email}'"
db.execute(text(query))
# GOOD: Parameterized query
db.execute(text("SELECT * FROM users WHERE email = :email"), {"email": email})
# GOOD: SQLAlchemy ORM (always parameterized)
user = db.query(User).filter(User.email == email).first()
# BAD: Command injection
subprocess.run(f"convert {filename}", shell=True)
# GOOD: Pass arguments as a list
subprocess.run(["convert", filename], shell=False)
# BAD: Code execution with user input
result = eval(user_input)
# GOOD: Never eval user input. Use ast.literal_eval for safe parsing.
result = ast.literal_eval(user_input) # Only for literal structuresReview checklist:
- No raw SQL with string interpolation (use ORM or parameterized queries)
- No
eval(),exec(), orcompile()with external input - No
subprocess.run(..., shell=True)with dynamic arguments - No
pickle.loads()on untrusted data - All user input validated by Pydantic schemas before use
A04: Insecure Design
What to look for:
- Missing rate limiting on authentication endpoints
- No account lockout after failed login attempts
- Missing CAPTCHA on public-facing forms
- Business logic flaws (e.g., negative amounts, self-privilege-escalation)
Review checklist:
- Rate limiting on login, registration, and password reset
- Account lockout or exponential backoff after 5+ failed attempts
- Business logic validates constraints (positive amounts, valid transitions)
- Sensitive operations require re-authentication
A05: Security Misconfiguration
What to look for:
- Debug mode enabled in production
- CORS configured with wildcard
*origins - Default credentials or admin accounts
- Verbose error messages exposing stack traces
Python/FastAPI checks:
# BAD: Wide-open CORS
app.add_middleware(CORSMiddleware, allow_origins=["*"])
# GOOD: Explicit allowed origins
app.add_middleware(
CORSMiddleware,
allow_origins=["https://app.example.com"],
allow_methods=["GET", "POST", "PUT", "DELETE"],
allow_headers=["Authorization", "Content-Type"],
)
# BAD: Debug mode in production
app = FastAPI(debug=True)
# GOOD: Debug only in development
app = FastAPI(debug=settings.DEBUG) # DEBUG=False in productionReview checklist:
- CORS origins are explicit (no wildcard in production)
- Debug mode disabled in production configuration
- Error responses do not expose stack traces or internal details
- Default admin credentials are changed or removed
- Security headers set (X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, etc.)
A06: Vulnerable and Outdated Components
Review checklist:
- No known CVEs in Python dependencies (
pip-auditorsafety check) - No known CVEs in npm dependencies (
npm audit) - Dependencies pinned to specific versions in lock files
- No deprecated packages still in use
A07: Identification and Authentication Failures
What to look for:
- Weak password policies
- Session tokens that do not expire
- Missing multi-factor authentication for admin actions
- JWT tokens without expiration
Python checks:
# BAD: JWT without expiration
token = jwt.encode({"sub": user_id}, SECRET_KEY, algorithm="HS256")
# GOOD: JWT with expiration
token = jwt.encode(
{"sub": user_id, "exp": datetime.utcnow() + timedelta(minutes=30)},
SECRET_KEY,
algorithm="HS256",
)Review checklist:
- JWT tokens have expiration (
expclaim) - Refresh tokens are stored securely and can be revoked
- Password policy enforces minimum length (12+) and complexity
- Session invalidation on password change or logout
- No user enumeration via login error messages
A08: Software and Data Integrity Failures
Review checklist:
- CI/CD pipeline validates artifact integrity
- No unsigned or unverified packages
- Deserialization of untrusted data uses safe methods (no
pickle.loads) - Database migrations are reviewed before execution
A09: Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
Review checklist:
- Authentication events are logged (login, logout, failed attempts)
- Authorization failures are logged with context
- Sensitive data is NOT included in logs (passwords, tokens, PII)
- Log entries include timestamp, user ID, IP address, action
- Alerting configured for suspicious patterns (brute force, unusual access)
A10: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
What to look for:
- User-supplied URLs used in server-side requests
- Redirect endpoints that accept arbitrary URLs
Python checks:
# BAD: Fetch arbitrary URL from user input
url = request.query_params["url"]
response = httpx.get(url) # SSRF: can access internal services
# GOOD: Validate URL against allowlist
ALLOWED_HOSTS = {"api.example.com", "cdn.example.com"}
parsed = urlparse(url)
if parsed.hostname not in ALLOWED_HOSTS:
raise HTTPException(400, "URL not allowed")
response = httpx.get(url)Review checklist:
- No server-side requests to user-controlled URLs without validation
- URL allowlists used for external integrations
- Internal service URLs not exposed in error messages
Python-Specific Security Checks
Beyond OWASP, review Python code for these patterns:
| Pattern | Risk | Fix |
eval(user_input) | Remote code execution | Remove or use ast.literal_eval |
pickle.loads(data) | Arbitrary code execution | Use JSON or msgpack |
subprocess.run(cmd, shell=True) | Command injection | Pass args as list, shell=False |
yaml.load(data) | Code execution | Use yaml.safe_load(data) |
os.system(cmd) | Command injection | Use subprocess.run([...]) |
| Raw SQL strings | SQL injection | Use ORM or parameterized queries |
hashlib.md5(password) | Weak hashing | Use bcrypt via passlib |
jwt.decode(token, options={"verify_signature": False}) | Auth bypass | Always verify signature |
open(user_path) | Path traversal | Validate path, use pathlib.resolve() |
tempfile.mktemp() | Race condition | Use tempfile.mkstemp() |
React-Specific Security Checks
| Pattern | Risk | Fix |
dangerouslySetInnerHTML | XSS | Use text content or sanitize with DOMPurify |
javascript: in href | XSS | Validate URLs, allow only https: |
window.location = userInput | Open redirect | Validate against allowlist |
| Storing tokens in localStorage | Token theft via XSS | Use httpOnly cookies |
| Inline event handlers from data | XSS | Use React event handlers |
eval() or Function() | Code execution | Remove entirely |
| Rendering user HTML | XSS | Use a sanitization library |
React code review:
// BAD: XSS via dangerouslySetInnerHTML
<div dangerouslySetInnerHTML={{ __html: userBio }} />
// GOOD: Sanitize first, or use text content
import DOMPurify from "dompurify";
<div dangerouslySetInnerHTML={{ __html: DOMPurify.sanitize(userBio) }} />
// BETTER: Use text content when HTML is not needed
<p>{userBio}</p>
// BAD: javascript: URL
<a href={userLink}>Click</a> // userLink could be "javascript:alert(1)"
// GOOD: Validate protocol
const safeHref = /^https?:\/\//.test(userLink) ? userLink : "#";
<a href={safeHref}>Click</a>Severity Classification
Classify each finding by severity for prioritization:
| Severity | Description | Examples | SLA |
| Critical | Exploitable remotely, no auth needed, data breach | SQL injection, RCE, auth bypass | Block merge, fix immediately |
| High | Exploitable with auth, privilege escalation | IDOR, broken access control, XSS (stored) | Block merge, fix before release |
| Medium | Requires specific conditions to exploit | CSRF, XSS (reflected), open redirect | Fix within sprint |
| Low | Defense-in-depth, informational | Missing headers, verbose errors | Fix when convenient |
| Info | Best practice recommendations | Dependency updates, code style | Track in backlog |
Finding Report Format
When reporting security findings, use this format for consistency:
## Security Finding: [Title]
**Severity:** Critical | High | Medium | Low | Info
**Category:** OWASP A01-A10 or custom category
**File:** path/to/file.py:42
**CWE:** CWE-89 (if applicable)
### Description
Brief description of the vulnerability and its impact.
### Vulnerable Code
```python
# The problematic code
vulnerable_function(user_input)Recommended Fix
# The secure alternative
safe_function(sanitize(user_input))Impact
What an attacker could achieve by exploiting this vulnerability.
References
- Link to relevant OWASP page
- Link to relevant CWE entry
### Automated Scanning
Use `scripts/security-scan.py` to perform AST-based scanning for common vulnerability patterns in Python code. The script scans for:
- `eval()` / `exec()` / `compile()` calls
- `subprocess` with `shell=True`
- `pickle.loads()` on potentially untrusted data
- Raw SQL string construction
- `yaml.load()` without `Loader=SafeLoader`
- Hardcoded secret patterns (API keys, passwords)
- Weak hash functions (MD5, SHA1 for passwords)
Run: `python scripts/security-scan.py --path ./app --output-dir ./security-results`
**Dependency scanning (run separately):**
```bash
# Python dependencies
pip-audit --requirement requirements.txt --output json > dep-audit.json
# npm dependencies
npm audit --json > npm-audit.jsonExamples
Example Review Comment (Critical)
SECURITY: SQL Injection (Critical, OWASP A03)
File:
app/repositories/user_repository.py:47query = f"SELECT * FROM users WHERE name LIKE '%{search_term}%'"This constructs a raw SQL query with string interpolation, allowing SQL injection. An attacker could input
'; DROP TABLE users; --to destroy data.Fix: Use SQLAlchemy ORM filtering:
users = db.query(User).filter(User.name.ilike(f"%{search_term}%")).all()
Example Review Comment (Medium)
SECURITY: Missing Rate Limiting (Medium, OWASP A04)
File:
app/routes/auth.py:12The
/auth/loginendpoint has no rate limiting. An attacker could perform brute-force password attacks at unlimited speed.Fix: Add rate limiting middleware:
from slowapi import Limiter limiter = Limiter(key_func=get_remote_address) @router.post("/login") @limiter.limit("5/minute") async def login(request: Request, ...):
Output File
Write security findings to security-review.md:
# Security Review: [Feature/PR Name]
## Summary
- Critical: 0 | High: 1 | Medium: 2 | Low: 1
## Findings
### [CRITICAL] SQL Injection in user search
- **File:** app/routes/users.py:45
- **OWASP:** A03 Injection
- **Description:** Raw SQL with string interpolation
- **Recommendation:** Use SQLAlchemy ORM filtering
### [HIGH] Missing authorization check
...
## Passed Checks
- No hardcoded secrets found
- Dependencies up to dateDoes 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.

