How do I install the Review Security skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add gtrabanco/review-security-2 in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Review Security safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. Independent scanners report: SkillSpector: PASS, Skill Scanner: PASS. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Review Security?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Review Security free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free. This skill is licensed under MIT.

Who published Review Security?

gtrabanco (@gtrabanco) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Review Security by gtrabanco — Agent Skill

Name: Review Security
Author: gtrabanco

Review Security

Internal security review pass of the agentic-workflow review pack — composed in-turn by review-change and product-audit; not a menu entry. Checks secrets, input validation, injection, authn/authz, PII exposure, and dependency risk on the changed surface. Findings only; never edits code.

gtrabanco Updated Sep 21, 2026

File contents

Review Security (internal)

Composed by review-change / product-audit within their conversation — on any agent, follow this file inline as the routed step. Findings only; never edits, never refactors.

Scope

The diff or path/glob the caller passes; default the current change vs the default branch. State the scope at the top of the returned table.

Checklist (evaluate EVERY item — none is optional; n/a must be stated)

✓ No secrets/credentials/tokens in code, config, tests, or fixtures (grep the diff for key-like strings) ✓ Every external input on the changed paths is validated/sanitized before use ✓ No injection vectors (SQL/command/path/template) — parameterized/escaped, never concatenated ✓ AuthN/AuthZ enforced on every new/changed endpoint or entry point (cite where) ✓ No PII or secrets written to logs/error messages on the changed paths ✓ Webhooks/callbacks verify signatures before processing ✓ Rate limiting / abuse controls considered where a new public surface appears (n/a if none) ✓ New/updated dependencies pinned and free of known-critical advisories (state how you checked) ✓ Error responses don't leak stack traces or internal paths ✓ Unsafe deserialization / dynamic evaluation of untrusted data absent

Materiality bar

Report a row only when a competent user's outcome changes or a rule the project explicitly declares is violated — cite the rule it violates beside the evidence. Not findings: comment/punctuation typos, formatting-only drift, style preference with no cited rule, hypothetical robustness beyond the SPEC's named scenarios. An empty table with Decision: PASS is the expected result for a well-formed change — never pad the table.

Return exactly

REVIEW SECURITY — scope: <scope>

| # | Finding | Sev | Evidence | Suggested fix |
|---|---------|-----|----------|---------------|
| 1 | <what>  | critical|major|minor | <file:line> | <smallest action> |

Checklist: <n> evaluated, <n> pass, <n> findings, <n> n/a (<which + why>)
Summary: <1-2 sentences>
Decision: PASS | FAIL

FAIL if any critical or major finding is open; PASS otherwise. Minor findings never block — they route to the caller's triage step.

Done when

Every checklist item was evaluated with evidence (file:line or command output) or explicitly marked n/a with the reason.
The fixed-format block above is returned — nothing more, nothing less — and no code was changed.

---name: review-security-2description: Internal security review pass of the agentic-workflow review pack — composed in-turn by review-change and product-audit; not a menu entry. Checks secrets, input validation, injection, authn/authz, PII exposure, and dependency risk on the changed surface. Findings only; never edits code.license: MIT---# Review Security (internal)Composed by `review-change` / `product-audit` within their conversation — on anyagent, follow this file inline as the routed step. **Findings only; never edits,never refactors.**## ScopeThe diff or path/glob the caller passes; default the current change vs thedefault branch. State the scope at the top of the returned table.## Checklist (evaluate EVERY item — none is optional; n/a must be stated)✓ No secrets/credentials/tokens in code, config, tests, or fixtures (grep the diff for key-like strings)✓ Every external input on the changed paths is validated/sanitized before use✓ No injection vectors (SQL/command/path/template) — parameterized/escaped, never concatenated✓ AuthN/AuthZ enforced on every new/changed endpoint or entry point (cite where)✓ No PII or secrets written to logs/error messages on the changed paths✓ Webhooks/callbacks verify signatures before processing✓ Rate limiting / abuse controls considered where a new public surface appears (n/a if none)✓ New/updated dependencies pinned and free of known-critical advisories (state how you checked)✓ Error responses don't leak stack traces or internal paths✓ Unsafe deserialization / dynamic evaluation of untrusted data absent## Materiality barReport a row only when a competent user's outcome changes or a rule the projectexplicitly declares is violated — cite the rule it violates beside the evidence.Not findings: comment/punctuation typos, formatting-only drift, style preferencewith no cited rule, hypothetical robustness beyond the SPEC's named scenarios.An empty table with `Decision: PASS` is the expected result for a well-formedchange — never pad the table.## Return exactly```REVIEW SECURITY — scope: <scope>| # | Finding | Sev | Evidence | Suggested fix ||---|---------|-----|----------|---------------|| 1 | <what> | critical|major|minor | <file:line> | <smallest action> |Checklist: <n> evaluated, <n> pass, <n> findings, <n> n/a (<which + why>)Summary: <1-2 sentences>Decision: PASS | FAIL```FAIL if any critical or major finding is open; PASS otherwise. Minor findingsnever block — they route to the caller's triage step.## Done when- Every checklist item was evaluated with evidence (file:line or command output) or explicitly marked n/a with the reason.- The fixed-format block above is returned — nothing more, nothing less — and no code was changed.

Frequently asked questions