Install
npx skillscat add yeachan-heo/oh-my-codex/security-review Install via the SkillsCat registry.
We need to produce a 2-3 sentence plain-text summary, objective, factual, no marketing, no superlatives, no calls to action. Must be at most 60 words. Summarize: skill runs comprehensive security review on code, checks OWASP Top 10, hardcoded secrets, input validation. Solves problem of identifying security vulnerabilities before deployment. Use when user requests security review, after writing code handling input, after adding API endpoints, after modifying auth, before deploying, after adding dependencies. We need 2-3 sentences, plain text, no bullet points, no headings, no markdown.
Security Review Skill
Conduct a thorough security audit checking for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities, hardcoded secrets, and unsafe patterns.
When to Use
This skill activates when:
- User requests "security review", "security audit"
- After writing code that handles user input
- After adding new API endpoints
- After modifying authentication/authorization logic
- Before deploying to production
- After adding external dependencies
What It Does
GPT-5.4 Guidance Alignment
- Default to concise, evidence-dense progress and completion reporting unless the user or risk level requires more detail.
- Treat newer user task updates as local overrides for the active workflow branch while preserving earlier non-conflicting constraints.
- If correctness depends on additional inspection, retrieval, execution, or verification, keep using the relevant tools until the security review is grounded.
- Continue through clear, low-risk, reversible next steps automatically; ask only when the next step is materially branching, destructive, or preference-dependent.
Delegates to the security-reviewer agent (THOROUGH tier) for deep security analysis:
OWASP Top 10 Scan
- A01: Broken Access Control
- A02: Cryptographic Failures
- A03: Injection (SQL, NoSQL, Command, XSS)
- A04: Insecure Design
- A05: Security Misconfiguration
- A06: Vulnerable and Outdated Components
- A07: Identification and Authentication Failures
- A08: Software and Data Integrity Failures
- A09: Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
- A10: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
Secrets Detection
- Hardcoded API keys
- Passwords in source code
- Private keys in repo
- Tokens and credentials
- Connection strings with secrets
Input Validation
- All user inputs sanitized
- SQL/NoSQL injection prevention
- Command injection prevention
- XSS prevention (output escaping)
- Path traversal prevention
Authentication/Authorization
- Proper password hashing (bcrypt, argon2)
- Session management security
- Access control enforcement
- JWT implementation security
Dependency Security
- Run
npm auditfor known vulnerabilities - Check for outdated dependencies
- Identify high-severity CVEs
- Run
Agent Delegation
delegate(
role="security-reviewer",
tier="THOROUGH",
prompt="SECURITY REVIEW TASK
Conduct comprehensive security audit of codebase.
Scope: [specific files or entire codebase]
Security Checklist:
1. OWASP Top 10 scan
2. Hardcoded secrets detection
3. Input validation review
4. Authentication/authorization review
5. Dependency vulnerability scan (npm audit)
Output: Security review report with:
- Summary of findings by severity (CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW)
- Specific file:line locations
- CVE references where applicable
- Remediation guidance for each issue
- Overall security posture assessment"
)External Model Consultation (Preferred)
The security-reviewer agent SHOULD consult Codex for cross-validation.
Protocol
- Form your OWN security analysis FIRST - Complete the review independently
- Consult for validation - Cross-check findings with Codex
- Critically evaluate - Never blindly adopt external findings
- Graceful fallback - Never block if tools unavailable
When to Consult
- Authentication/authorization code
- Cryptographic implementations
- Input validation for untrusted data
- High-risk vulnerability patterns
- Production deployment code
When to Skip
- Low-risk utility code
- Well-audited patterns
- Time-critical security assessments
- Code with existing security tests
Tool Usage
Before first MCP tool use, call ToolSearch("mcp") to discover deferred MCP tools.
Use mcp__x__ask_codex with agent_role: "security-reviewer".
If ToolSearch finds no MCP tools, fall back to the security-reviewer agent.
Note: Security second opinions are high-value. Consider consulting for CRITICAL/HIGH findings.
Output Format
SECURITY REVIEW REPORT
======================
Scope: Entire codebase (42 files scanned)
Scan Date: 2026-01-24T14:30:00Z
CRITICAL (2)
------------
1. src/api/auth.ts:89 - Hardcoded API Key
Finding: AWS API key hardcoded in source code
Impact: Credential exposure if code is public or leaked
Remediation: Move to environment variables, rotate key immediately
Reference: OWASP A02:2021 – Cryptographic Failures
2. src/db/query.ts:45 - SQL Injection Vulnerability
Finding: User input concatenated directly into SQL query
Impact: Attacker can execute arbitrary SQL commands
Remediation: Use parameterized queries or ORM
Reference: OWASP A03:2021 – Injection
HIGH (5)
--------
3. src/auth/password.ts:22 - Weak Password Hashing
Finding: Passwords hashed with MD5 (cryptographically broken)
Impact: Passwords can be reversed via rainbow tables
Remediation: Use bcrypt or argon2 with appropriate work factor
Reference: OWASP A02:2021 – Cryptographic Failures
4. src/components/UserInput.tsx:67 - XSS Vulnerability
Finding: User input rendered with dangerouslySetInnerHTML
Impact: Cross-site scripting attack vector
Remediation: Sanitize HTML or use safe rendering
Reference: OWASP A03:2021 – Injection (XSS)
5. src/api/upload.ts:34 - Path Traversal Vulnerability
Finding: User-controlled filename used without validation
Impact: Attacker can read/write arbitrary files
Remediation: Validate and sanitize filenames, use allowlist
Reference: OWASP A01:2021 – Broken Access Control
...
MEDIUM (8)
----------
...
LOW (12)
--------
...
DEPENDENCY VULNERABILITIES
--------------------------
Found 3 vulnerabilities via npm audit:
CRITICAL: axios@0.21.0 - Server-Side Request Forgery (CVE-2021-3749)
Installed: axios@0.21.0
Fix: npm install axios@0.21.2
HIGH: lodash@4.17.19 - Prototype Pollution (CVE-2020-8203)
Installed: lodash@4.17.19
Fix: npm install lodash@4.17.21
...
OVERALL ASSESSMENT
------------------
Security Posture: POOR (2 CRITICAL, 5 HIGH issues)
Immediate Actions Required:
1. Rotate exposed AWS API key
2. Fix SQL injection in db/query.ts
3. Upgrade password hashing to bcrypt
4. Update vulnerable dependencies
Recommendation: DO NOT DEPLOY until CRITICAL and HIGH issues resolved.Security Checklist
The security-reviewer agent verifies:
Authentication & Authorization
- Passwords hashed with strong algorithm (bcrypt/argon2)
- Session tokens cryptographically random
- JWT tokens properly signed and validated
- Access control enforced on all protected resources
- No authentication bypass vulnerabilities
Input Validation
- All user inputs validated and sanitized
- SQL queries use parameterization (no string concatenation)
- NoSQL queries prevent injection
- File uploads validated (type, size, content)
- URLs validated to prevent SSRF
Output Encoding
- HTML output escaped to prevent XSS
- JSON responses properly encoded
- No user data in error messages
- Content-Security-Policy headers set
Secrets Management
- No hardcoded API keys
- No passwords in source code
- No private keys in repo
- Environment variables used for secrets
- Secrets not logged or exposed in errors
Cryptography
- Strong algorithms used (AES-256, RSA-2048+)
- Proper key management
- Random number generation cryptographically secure
- TLS/HTTPS enforced for sensitive data
Dependencies
- No known vulnerabilities in dependencies
- Dependencies up to date
- No CRITICAL or HIGH CVEs
- Dependency sources verified
Severity Definitions
CRITICAL - Exploitable vulnerability with severe impact (data breach, RCE, credential theft)
HIGH - Vulnerability requiring specific conditions but serious impact
MEDIUM - Security weakness with limited impact or difficult exploitation
LOW - Best practice violation or minor security concern
Remediation Priority
- Rotate exposed secrets - Immediate (within 1 hour)
- Fix CRITICAL - Urgent (within 24 hours)
- Fix HIGH - Important (within 1 week)
- Fix MEDIUM - Planned (within 1 month)
- Fix LOW - Backlog (when convenient)
Scenario Examples
Good: The user says continue after the workflow already has a clear next step. Continue the current branch of work instead of restarting or re-asking the same question.
Good: The user changes only the output shape or downstream delivery step (for example make a PR). Preserve earlier non-conflicting workflow constraints and apply the update locally.
Bad: The user says continue, and the workflow restarts discovery or stops before the missing verification/evidence is gathered.
Use with Other Skills
With Team:
/team "run security review on authentication module"Uses: explore → security-reviewer → executor → security-reviewer (re-verify)
With Swarm:
/swarm 4:security-reviewer "audit all API endpoints"Parallel security review across multiple endpoints.
With Ralph:
/ralph security-review then fix all issuesReview, fix, re-review until all issues resolved.
Best Practices
- Review early - Security by design, not afterthought
- Review often - Every major feature or API change
- Automate - Run security scans in CI/CD pipeline
- Fix immediately - Don't accumulate security debt
- Educate - Learn from findings to prevent future issues
- Verify fixes - Re-run security review after remediation