/security-team — Multi-Agent Security Assessment
Launch a parallel security team that examines the codebase for vulnerabilities from multiple perspectives simultaneously.
Team Composition
| Agent | Role | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| security-reviewer | Vulnerability Hunter | OWASP Top 10, injection, auth, access control, data exposure |
| dependency-checker | Supply Chain | npm audit, outdated packages, known CVEs, malicious deps |
| explorer-deep | Architecture Auditor | Auth flow, data flow, trust boundaries, attack surface |
Instructions
Step 1: Determine Scope
If the user provided $ARGUMENTS:
full→ scan entire project- File/directory paths → scan those specifically
- Feature name → identify related files first
If no arguments:
- Check
git diff --name-only HEAD~1for recently changed files - If no changes, ask: "Which area should I assess? Or type 'full' for the entire project."
Step 2: Launch Parallel Agents
Launch all three agents simultaneously:
Agent({
subagent_type: "security-reviewer",
description: "Vulnerability assessment",
prompt: "Perform a security review of: [scope]. Check all OWASP Top 10 categories: injection (SQL, command, XSS), broken auth, sensitive data exposure, XXE, broken access control, security misconfiguration, deserialization, components with vulnerabilities, insufficient logging. Also check: CSRF protection, rate limiting, error message information leaks, hardcoded secrets. Report findings by severity (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW) with file:line references and fix suggestions."
})
Agent({
subagent_type: "dependency-checker",
description: "Dependency security audit",
prompt: "Audit all project dependencies for security issues. Run npm audit (or equivalent), check for outdated packages with known CVEs, identify packages with low maintenance or suspicious characteristics. Check: lock file integrity, pinned versions, deprecated packages, transitive vulnerabilities. Report each finding with severity, CVE ID if available, and remediation steps."
})
Agent({
subagent_type: "explorer-deep",
description: "Security architecture analysis",
prompt: "Analyze the security architecture of: [scope]. Map: authentication flow (login → session → authorization), data flow (user input → processing → storage → output), trust boundaries (client/server, internal/external APIs, database access), attack surface (public endpoints, file uploads, external integrations). Identify: missing auth checks, privilege escalation paths, data validation gaps, insecure defaults. Report as an architecture assessment with diagram-friendly descriptions."
})
All three agents MUST be launched in a single message (parallel execution).
Step 3: Unified Security Report
After all agents complete, produce a consolidated report:
## Security Team Report
### Scope
[what was assessed]
### CRITICAL Vulnerabilities
[from all agents, deduplicated, with exploit scenario]
### HIGH Vulnerabilities
[merged findings]
### MEDIUM Vulnerabilities
[merged findings]
### LOW / Informational
[merged findings]
### Dependency Health
- Vulnerabilities found: N (X critical, Y high)
- Outdated packages: N
- Action required: [list packages to update]
### Architecture Assessment
- Auth flow: [OK / CONCERNS]
- Data flow: [OK / CONCERNS]
- Trust boundaries: [OK / CONCERNS]
- Attack surface: [OK / CONCERNS]
### Summary
- Total findings: N
- Must fix before deploy: N (all CRITICAL + HIGH)
- **Security Verdict:** PASS / FAIL (N blocking issues)
Step 4: Remediation Plan
If CRITICAL or HIGH findings exist:
- List fixes in priority order (highest risk first)
- Estimate blast radius of each fix
- Offer: "Shall I fix the N critical/high security issues now?"
For dependency issues, suggest specific version bumps with commands.