Skip to content
Back to skills

Security Review

BSecurity

Review code for the vulnerabilities that actually get exploited, ranked by real risk with concrete attack scenarios. Use when reviewing changes that touch input handling, auth, secrets, files, queries, or network calls.

  • 7 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 0 views
  • Added September 5, 2026
ai-agentsrustshellsqlapisecurity

Works with

  • cli
  • api

Security analysis

B85/100
  • highCreates or modifies cron jobs for persistent execution

Pro shows the line behind each finding and how to fix it

Scanned September 5, 2026

npx -y skills add Amey-Thakur/AI-SKILLS --skill security-review --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Security Review?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Security Review
[![Security: B — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/amey-thakur-security-review/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/amey-thakur-security-review)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: security-review
description: Review code for the vulnerabilities that actually get exploited, ranked by real risk with concrete attack scenarios. Use when reviewing changes that touch input handling, auth, secrets, files, queries, or network calls.
---

# Security review

Audit the paths an attacker would walk, not a checklist. Every finding needs
a concrete attack scenario; if you cannot describe the attack, it is a
hardening suggestion, not a vulnerability.

## Method

1. **Map the trust boundaries first.** Where does data enter from outside
   (requests, files, env, third-party APIs, user uploads)? Where does the
   code do something privileged (queries, shell, filesystem, network,
   crypto, money)? Vulnerabilities live on paths from the first list to the
   second.
2. **Walk each path hunting the classics, in payoff order:**
   - Injection: user input reaching SQL, shell, path, template, or eval
     without parameterization or strict validation. String concatenation
     into any interpreter is guilty until proven safe.
   - Broken auth and authz: endpoints missing permission checks, ids taken
     from the client without ownership verification (IDOR), tokens that
     never expire, secrets compared with string equality.
   - Secrets in the wrong place: keys in code, tokens in logs, credentials
     in error messages or URLs.
   - Unsafe deserialization and parsing of untrusted data.
   - SSRF: user-influenced URLs fetched by the server without a host
     allowlist; redirects and DNS tricks bypass naive checks.
   - Path traversal: filenames from users joined into paths without
     canonicalization checks.
   - Missing limits: unbounded sizes, counts, depths, and rates, each a
     denial of service on a timer.
3. **Verify each candidate.** Construct the input and the resulting damage:
   "a filename of ../../etc/cron.d/x writes outside the upload dir". If the
   framework already neutralizes it, say so and move on; false alarms
   erode trust in real ones.
4. **Rank by exploitability times damage.** Remote unauthenticated beats
   authenticated; data theft and code execution beat information leaks.
   Report the worst first, with the fix that closes the class, not just
   the instance: parameterize everywhere, not just this query.

## Rules

- Never write working exploit payloads into the report beyond the minimum
  needed to demonstrate the flaw to the maintainer.
- Dependency risk counts: flag known-vulnerable versions when visible, but
  do not speculate about CVEs from memory without checking.
- Absence of findings is a real result. Say "no injection paths found in
  the reviewed surface" and name what you did not review.

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…