agentleFS
sd0xdevsd0xdev/sd0x-dev-flow/skills/security-review/SKILL.md

security-review

Skill192 starsChanged 40 days agoMITView on GitHub

Security review via Codex exec. Use when: OWASP Top 10:2025 audit, dependency vulnerability check, security-sensitive changes. Not for: code review (use codex-code-review), test review (use test-review). Output: security findings + audit report.

192 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use linkerd-patterns, dependency-cve-sweep and 10 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.
  • xfstudioSkill

    linkerd-patterns

    Implement Linkerd service mesh patterns for lightweight, security-focused service mesh deployments. Use when setting up Linkerd, configuring traffic policies, or implementing zero-trust networking with minimal overhead.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • berntpoppSkill

    dependency-cve-sweep

    Use when handling Dependabot PRs, CodeQL/Trivy alerts, or doing a routine dependency/CVE sweep for this repo.

    Also in 12 projects that use this

  • berntpoppSkill

    fleet-standard-adoption

    Use when bringing this repo into compliance with a GeneFoundry fleet standard (tool-naming, response-envelope, container-hardening, versioning, MCP transport, or logging) or closing its tracking issue.

    Also in 12 projects that use this

  • HABUBUSSSkill

    project-guidelines-example

    Also in 16 projects that use this

  • niloykumarbarmanSkill

    agent-sort

    Build an evidence-backed ECC install plan for a specific repo by sorting skills, commands, rules, hooks, and extras into DAILY vs LIBRARY buckets using parallel repo-aware review passes. Use when ECC should be trimmed to what a project actually needs instead of loading the full bundle.

    Also in 13 projects that use this

  • royaluniondesign-sysSkill

    configure-ecc

    Interactive installer for Everything Claude Code — guides users through selecting and installing skills and rules to user-level or project-level directories, verifies paths, and optionally optimizes installed files.

    Also in 11 projects that use this

  • +2 more from berntpopp

The file

Files
SKILL.md

Security Review Skill

Trigger

  • Keywords: security review, OWASP, vulnerability, dep-audit, npm audit, dependency security

When NOT to Use

  • General code review (use codex-code-review)
  • Functional testing (use test-review)
  • Performance issues (not security-related)

Commands

CommandPurposeWhen
/codex-securityOWASP Top 10 auditSecurity-sensitive code
/dep-auditDependency security auditPeriodic / PR

Workflow: /codex-security

Determine scope → Collect changes → Codex OWASP review → Findings + Gate → Loop if Must fix

Step 1: Determine Scope

Parse --scope from arguments, default to src/.

Step 2: Collect Change Metadata

Metadata, not content: the first dispatch carries the changed-file list and diff stats, and Codex reads the diffs itself from the sandbox (@rules/codex-invocation.md § Required in every first-dispatch prompt). A truncated | head -1500 excerpt was the old shape, and it decided for the reviewer which 1500 lines of a security review mattered.

  1. CHANGED_FILES: git diff --name-only HEAD -- <scope> ∪ git ls-files --others --exclude-standard -- <scope>
  2. DIFF_STAT: git diff --stat HEAD -- <scope>
  3. SCOPE: the resolved scope argument, plus the security-relevant paths a Glob("**/*{auth,login,password,token,secret,key,credential}*") surfaces — named as places to look, never pasted

Step 3: Codex Security Review

First review: dispatch per @skills/codex-code-review/references/codex-transport.md § Start with the OWASP prompt. See references/codex-prompt-security.md.

Save the returned threadId.

Loop review: dispatch per @skills/codex-code-review/references/codex-transport.md § Resume with the re-review template. See references/codex-prompt-security.md.

Step 4: Consolidate Output

Organize results into findings summary table + detailed findings + gate.

OWASP Top 10:2025

The version is part of the identifier: SSRF is no longer A10 (it sits inside A01), and A02–A06 renumbered, so a finding labelled with a 2021 code says something different to whoever reads it.

CodeCategoryCheck Focus
A01Broken Access CtrlIDOR, permission bypass, CORS, SSRF
A02MisconfigurationDebug mode, default passwords
A03Supply Chain FailuresVulnerable deps, unverified build sources
A04Crypto FailuresSensitive data encryption, weak crypto
A05InjectionSQL/NoSQL/Cmd Injection, XSS
A06Insecure DesignRate Limiting, business logic
A07Auth FailuresBrute force, session, weak passwords
A08Integrity FailuresDeserialization, CI/CD
A09Logging & AlertingSensitive data in logs, auditing, alerts
A10Exceptional ConditionsError paths that fail open or leak

Review Loop

⚠️ @CLAUDE.md auto-loop: fix → re-review → ... → ✅ PASS ⚠️

⛔ Must fix → fix P0 issues → /codex-security --continue <threadId> → repeat until ✅ Mergeable.

Max 3 rounds. Still failing → report blocker.

Verification

  • Each issue tagged with severity (P0/P1/P2)
  • Gate is explicit (✅ Mergeable / ⛔ Must fix)
  • Fix recommendations are specific and actionable
  • Includes verification test method
  • Codex independently researched auth/input/sensitive code

References

  • OWASP prompt: references/codex-prompt-security.md
  • Examples: references/examples.md
  • Standards: @rules/security.md

Examples

Input: /codex-security --scope src/controller/
Action: OWASP Top 10 check → output issues + Gate

Input: /dep-audit --level high
Action: npm audit → filter high/critical → output report

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.