security
Skill444 starsChanged 9 days agoMITView on GitHub
Security: review git changes for vulnerabilities, threat-model a system's attack surface, audit supply-chain risks.
- Reads credentials
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 103 edited versions we read keep these.
4
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 60
When the request is about reviewing changes (not a full threat model), run the diff review directly.
- Distinctive: line 65
Run a two-layer security review over the current git changes: a deterministic regex scan for known vulnerability classes, then an LLM-depth …
- Distinctive: line 109
Goal: Run the regex engine first so judgment time is spent on real signal, not on patterns a script catches deterministically.
- Very specific: line 140
If claude-security-guidance.md exists (precedence: ~/.claude/ → <cwd>/.claude/ → <cwd>/.claude/*.local.md), read it as ADDITIVE context — …
- Distinctive: line 252
Solution: Run the Phase 3 LLM-depth review alone and state in the verdict that the deterministic layer did not run.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 103 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
Security Skill
Two modes: diff review (scan current git changes for vulnerabilities) and threat model (audit a system's full attack surface). Load the reference for the mode the request matches.
Reference Loading Table
| Signal | Load | Why |
| Review git changes, scan a diff, check for vulnerabilities | references/coverage.md | 40 vulnerability classes for LLM-depth review of changed code |
| Threat model, attack surface, supply-chain audit, deny list, security posture | references/threat-model.md | 5-phase threat model workflow with deterministic scripts and artifact gates |
Default Mode: Diff Review
When the request is about reviewing changes (not a full threat model), run the diff review directly. This is the common case.
Security Review Skill
Run a two-layer security review over the current git changes: a deterministic regex scan for known vulnerability classes, then an LLM-depth Security review of the diff. Report a single BLOCK / FIX / APPROVE verdict.
The LLM-depth review runs inside the current Claude session — the same
subscription that loaded this skill. There is no separate model call, no
ANTHROPIC_API_KEY, no Agent SDK, and no network request. The "reviewer" is the
session agent executing the steps below, exactly like every other skill here.
Detection reaches parity with Anthropic's security-guidance plugin: the scanner
ports its 25 deterministic patterns, and the LLM pass applies its full review
taxonomy (loaded on demand from references/coverage.md).
Reference Loading Table
| Signal | Load | Why |
| Running Phase 3 (LLM-depth review); classifying a finding; needing the vuln taxonomy, severity rubric, FP exclusions, or per-language guidance | references/coverage.md | 40 vulnerability classes + 4-tier severity + false-positive exclusions + per-language guidance + the 12 high-miss reviewer classes + the finding output schema. |
Instructions
Phase 1: SCOPE
Goal: Determine the changed files to review before scanning.
Step 1: List changed files — scope to the working-tree and staged changes so the review covers exactly what the user is about to commit, not the whole repo.
# Tracked changes (working tree + index) plus staged adds:
git diff --name-only HEAD
git diff --cached --name-only --diff-filter=ACMStep 2: Read repository CLAUDE.md to load project conventions the reviewer must respect (e.g. secrets-handling rules, allowed patterns).
Gate: Changed files listed. When the list is empty, report "no changes to review" and stop — there is nothing to scan.
Phase 2: DETERMINISTIC SCAN
Goal: Run the regex engine first so judgment time is spent on real signal, not on patterns a script catches deterministically.
Step 1: Run the scanner over the changed files. It is the single source of detection rules (secrets, SQL injection, shell injection, dangerous eval, unsafe deserialization). Exit 1 means at least one HIGH/CRITICAL finding.
# Staged-files convenience (matches the commit-time hook):
python3 scripts/security-review-scan.py --staged --format json
# Or an explicit list from Phase 1:
python3 scripts/security-review-scan.py --files <changed-files> --format jsonStep 2: Record the findings by severity. CRITICAL and HIGH are blocking-class;
MEDIUM is advisory. Keep the file:line and rule for each.
Gate: Scanner ran and JSON parsed. Proceed with the findings in hand.
Phase 3: LLM-DEPTH REVIEW
Goal: Catch what regex cannot — authorization gaps, injection through data
flow, missing input validation, secrets in non-obvious forms. This is the
session agent's review of the diff; compose the existing parallel-code-review
Security reviewer over the changed files.
Step 1: Load references/coverage.md — the full review taxonomy (40
vulnerability classes, the 4-tier severity rubric, the false-positive exclusion
list, per-language guidance, and the 12 high-miss reviewer classes). Review to
this taxonomy so the session-agent pass reaches parity with the plugin's reviewer.
If claude-security-guidance.md exists (precedence: ~/.claude/ →
<cwd>/.claude/ → <cwd>/.claude/*.local.md), read it as ADDITIVE context — it
may add checks or raise a class's severity, and must not suppress findings.
Step 2: Dispatch the Security reviewer (the Reviewer 1 — Security role from
parallel-code-review) over the changed files via the Task tool, applying the
coverage.md taxonomy. Surface medium and above. Output: findings in the
coverage.md schema (filePath, category, vulnerableCode, explanation, fix,
severity) with file:line references.
Step 3: Merge the LLM findings with the Phase 2 scanner findings.
Deduplicate — when both flag the same file:line, keep one entry at the higher
severity. Independent confirmation by both layers raises confidence.
Gate: Security reviewer returned results and findings are merged. Issue a verdict only from a completed review — a missing reviewer may hold the only CRITICAL finding.
Phase 4: VERDICT
Goal: Produce a single clear recommendation.
Step 1: Determine the verdict from the merged findings:
| Condition | Verdict |
| Any CRITICAL finding | BLOCK |
| HIGH findings, no CRITICAL | FIX (resolve before commit) |
| Only MEDIUM/LOW findings | APPROVE (with suggestions) |
Step 2: Output the structured report:
## Security Review Complete
### Severity Matrix
| Severity | Count | Source (scanner / reviewer / both) |
|----------|-------|------------------------------------|
| Critical | N | ... |
| High | N | ... |
| Medium | N | ... |
### Findings
#### CRITICAL (Block)
1. [source] description — file:line
#### HIGH (Fix before commit)
1. [source] description — file:line
#### MEDIUM (Should fix)
1. [source] description — file:line
### VERDICT
**BLOCK / FIX / APPROVE** — [1-2 sentence rationale]Gate: Structured report delivered with an explicit verdict. Review complete.
Automatic Coverage (hooks)
This skill is the on-demand (PULL) path. The same review also runs automatically
(PUSH) via hooks/security-review-hook.py, wired in .claude/settings.json:
| Event | Behavior |
PreToolUse (Bash git commit) | Scans STAGED files with the same scanner. A HIGH/CRITICAL finding blocks the commit (deny). Clean commits pass. |
| Stop | Re-wakes the session with the working-tree diff and an instruction to run this pipeline. Advisory — never blocks. |
Bypass / kill switches (commit-time block only, deliberate overrides):
| Env var | Effect |
VEXJOY_SECURITY_REVIEW_SKIP=1 | Allow a commit through despite findings (one-off override). |
VEXJOY_SECURITY_REVIEW_DISABLE=1 | Disable the hook entirely (both events). |
The hook fails open on any internal error — a hook crash never blocks a commit.
Extensibility (custom rules + project guidance)
Both extension points are additive and discovered in this precedence order:
~/.claude/<name> → <cwd>/.claude/<name> → <cwd>/.claude/<name>.local.<ext>.
| File | Effect |
security-patterns.{yaml,json} | Custom regex/substring rules merged into the scanner's built-ins. Shape: {"patterns": [{"rule_name", "regex"|"substrings", "severity"?, "paths"?, "exclude_paths"?}]}. Capped at 50. ReDoS-prone or invalid rules are skipped with a stderr warning (non-fatal). PyYAML is used only if importable — JSON always works (stdlib-only). |
claude-security-guidance.md | Markdown surfaced to the Phase 3 review as ADDITIVE context. It may add checks or raise a class's severity; it must not suppress findings — if it says to ignore a class, flag the vulnerability anyway and note the conflict. |
Built-in scanner rules always run and cannot be disabled by a config file.
Error Handling
Scanner reports findings but the code is intentional
Cause: A regex rule flagged a test fixture, an example, or a deliberately
hardcoded local value.
Solution: Confirm context in Phase 3. Downgrade in the report with a one-line
justification. For a commit the user knows is safe, document the
VEXJOY_SECURITY_REVIEW_SKIP=1 override rather than editing the scanner rules.
Security reviewer times out or returns nothing
Cause: Task agent exceeded its budget, or the diff was too large. Solution: Report the Phase 2 scanner findings immediately (a partial review beats no review), note the LLM-depth gap in the verdict, and offer to re-run the Security reviewer on a reduced file set.
Scanner unavailable
Cause: scripts/security-review-scan.py missing from the working tree.
Solution: Run the Phase 3 LLM-depth review alone and state in the verdict that
the deterministic layer did not run.
References
- Detection rules:
scripts/security-review-scan.py(single source of truth) - Review taxonomy (40 classes + severity + FP filters + language guidance):
references/coverage.md - Security reviewer role:
skills/review/parallel-code-review/SKILL.md(Reviewer 1) - Auto-run hook:
hooks/security-review-hook.py - Design contract:
adr/local-security-review.md
Other versions125 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- notque/vexjoy-agent★ 444100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 124
- WordPress/gutenberg★ 12ksame name
- BuilderIO/agent-native★ 7.6ksame name
- parcadei/Continuous-Claude★ 3.9ksame name
- parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v2★ 3.9ksame name
- parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3★ 3.9ksame name
- gridaco/grida★ 2.7ksame name
- static-web-server/static-web-server★ 2.4ksame name
- BankrBot/openclaw-skills★ 1.2ksame name
- BankrBot/skills★ 1.2ksame name
- alinaqi/maggy★ 711same name
114 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.
Used alongsideProjects with it also use cost-reducer, scalability and 4 more.
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.
huyvpSkillcost-reducer
Reduce cloud, infrastructure, and operational costs while maintaining performance. Use when writing database queries, configuring cloud resources, optimizing bundles, setting up caching, choosing between services, sizing instances, configuring CDN, managing storage, or reviewing code for cost inefficiencies. Covers AWS/GCP/Vercel pricing, database optimization, serverless tuning, image pipelines, observability costs, and FinOps practices.
Also in 12 projects that use this
ffsshhttiikkSkillscalability
Core foundational concepts and principles for Scalability
Also in 11 projects that use this
xfstudioSkilltrigger-dev
Trigger.dev expert for background jobs, AI workflows, and reliable async execution with excellent developer experience and TypeScript-first design. Use when: trigger.dev, trigger dev, background task, ai background job, long running task.
Also in 11 projects that use this
xfstudioSkillcustomer-support
Elite AI-powered customer support specialist mastering
Also in 12 projects that use this
h-mascotSkillself-healing
Wrap long-running or fragile OpenClaw work in checkpointed retries, watchdogs, fallback models, and proof-of-completion so failed subagents can resume instead of silently dying.
Also in 12 projects that use this
parcadeiSkillagent-context-isolation
Agent Context Isolation
Also in 3 projects that use this
In this repository64 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- assessmentSkill
- dataSkill
- business-opsSkill
- code-qualitySkill
- comment-qualitySkill
- condenseSkill
- joy-checkSkill
- content-engineSkill
- contentSkill
- headlinesSkill
- image-genSkill
- image-to-videoSkill
- series-plannerSkill
- topic-brainstormerSkill
- video-editingSkill
- writingSkill
- domainSkill
- cli-designSkill
- frontendSkill
- frontend-slidesSkill
- jev-designSkill
- webgl-card-effectsSkill
- game-asset-generatorSkill
- game-devSkill
- game-trailerSkill
- motion-pipelineSkill
- browser-jev-automationSkill
- cve-source-checkSkill
- deploySkill
- endpoint-validatorSkill
- headless-cron-creatorSkill
- kubernetesSkill
- githubSkill
- accountsSkill
- auto-dreamSkill
- building-with-jevSkill
- codexSkill
- docs-sync-checkerSkill
- doSkill
- dSkill
- grill-jevSkill
- toolkitSkill
- workflow-helpSkill
- debuggingSkill
- plant-seedSkill
- processSkill
- pr-workflowSkill
- quickSkill
- testingSkill
- with-anti-rationalizationSkill
- workflowSkill
- worktree-agentSkill
- programmingSkill
- architecture-deepeningSkill
- codebase-analyzerSkill
- markdown-converterSkill
- news-collectionSkill
- researchSkill
- The first 60 shown.
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.

