Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →notque/security-review
Local security review of git changes: deterministic scan + Security reviewer over the diff. No API key, no SDK.
Passed 18 of 23 test cases with the skill, and 6 of 23 without it.
and 11 more in the full report
12 fixed6 passed either way5 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 12 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
During a security audit, the merged findings include one Critical severity SQL injection pattern and two Medium severity logging warnings. What single verdict recommendation should be assigned?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Assigns a verdict of BLOCK | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
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).
| 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. |
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=ACM
Step 2: Read repository CLAUDE.md to load project conventions the reviewer must respect (e.g. secrets-handling rules, allowed patterns).
test cases passed, vs 6 / 23 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.