Security Review

Perform a security review of the codebase or a specific feature.

Instructions

1. Read .claude/rules/agent-guide.md for project context and tech stack.
2. Read docs/spec/.llm/PROGRESS.md for known security considerations.
3. Perform a systematic security assessment covering the categories below.

Input Validation & Injection

• All user input is validated at system boundaries (handlers, CLI, config)
• SQL queries use parameterized statements (no string concatenation)
• Command execution inputs are properly escaped
• File paths from user input are sanitized (no path traversal)
• HTML output is escaped to prevent XSS
• JSON/XML parsing has size limits and depth limits

Authentication & Authorization

• Auth checks exist on all protected endpoints
• Token/session handling follows best practices (expiry, rotation, secure storage)
• Password handling uses proper hashing (bcrypt/argon2/scrypt, not MD5/SHA)
• Rate limiting exists on auth endpoints
• Privilege escalation paths are checked
• CORS policy is properly configured

Data Protection

• Sensitive data is not logged (passwords, tokens, PII)
• Secrets are not hardcoded in source (check for API keys, passwords, tokens)
• Environment variables used for secrets, not config files committed to git
• Data at rest encryption where required
• Data in transit uses TLS
• PII handling complies with requirements (GDPR, CCPA, etc.)

Dependencies

• No known vulnerable dependencies (run go vuln check, npm audit, etc.)
• Dependencies are pinned to specific versions
• Minimal dependency surface (no unnecessary packages)
• No dependencies with concerning permissions or behaviors

Error Handling & Information Disclosure

• Error messages don't leak internal details to external users
• Stack traces are not exposed in production responses
• Debug endpoints are disabled in production
• Logging doesn't include sensitive request/response bodies

Infrastructure

• Docker images use non-root users
• Container images are minimal (no unnecessary tools)
• Network policies limit container communication
• Health check endpoints don't expose sensitive info
• Resource limits are set (CPU, memory)

Report Format

Present findings as:

## Security Review: {scope}

### Summary
{overall assessment: clean / issues found / critical issues}

### Findings
| # | Finding | Severity | Category | Location |
|---|---------|----------|----------|----------|
| 1 | {finding} | {critical/high/medium/low/info} | {category} | {file:line} |

### Detailed Findings

#### Finding N: {title}
- **Severity**: {critical/high/medium/low/info}
- **Category**: {input-validation/auth/data-protection/deps/disclosure/infra}
- **Location**: `{file:line}`
- **Description**: {what's wrong}
- **Impact**: {what could happen if exploited}
- **Recommendation**: {how to fix}
- **Example fix**: {code snippet if applicable}

### Recommendations (Prioritized)
1. **[Critical]** {fix immediately}
2. **[High]** {fix before next release}
3. **[Medium]** {fix soon}
4. **[Low]** {fix when convenient}

$ARGUMENTS

Converted and distributed by TomeVault — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.