security-review

name	security-review
description	Security-focused PR review for vulnerabilities and best practices. Invokes the Security Reviewer agent (Hakim).
disable-model-invocation	false
argument-hint	<pr-number> [repo]
allowed-tools	Bash, Read, Grep, Glob

/security-review — Security Review

Review a pull request specifically for security vulnerabilities and best practices.

LSP-aware (optional, recommended)

This skill performs semantic code navigation — finding definitions, walking references, tracing handlers across modules. With LSP enabled (ENABLE_LSP_TOOL=1 + per-language plugin per docs/getting-started.md), queries are ~3-15× cheaper in token cost than grep + Read. Without LSP, the skill falls back to grep + Read transparently — no new failure mode, just optional speed.

Per-language LSP plugins live in Claude Code's marketplace. Install once; the skill detects the active language and dispatches automatically.

Activated agent + role

When /security-review runs:

1. Primary reviewer: the Security Reviewer agent (Hakim) at .claude/agents/security-reviewer.md — runs the automated security checklist.
2. Human approval gate: the Security Auditor role — activates on any PR that touches auth / crypto / secrets / user data / PII, or when /security-review is explicitly invoked.
3. Escalation for strategic calls: the Head of Security — threat modelling, compliance decisions, or novel attack surfaces.
4. For active testing: the Penetration Tester — exploit discovery, API security review, pre-release security sign-off.

See .claude/rules/role-triggers.md for the full activation protocol.

Usage

/security-review 42
/security-review 42 your-org/your-repo

When to Use

Invoke for PRs that touch:

• Authentication / authorisation
• User input handling
• API endpoints
• Data storage
• Third-party integrations
• Cryptography or secrets

Process

0. Write the active-reviewer marker (REQUIRED — me2resh/apexyard#843)

Before spawning the Security Reviewer agent, write the active-reviewer session marker. It records that this review pass is the sanctioned one and suppresses warn-review-marker-write.sh's advisory warning on the *-security.approved write (same convention as /code-review's rex marker; that hook warns and never blocks since #1026 — AgDR-0111). At skill entry:

ops_root=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)
r="$ops_root"
while [ -n "$r" ] && [ "$r" != "/" ]; do
  [ -f "$r/.apexyard-fork" ] && { ops_root="$r"; break; }
  [ -f "$r/onboarding.yaml" ] && [ -f "$r/apexyard.projects.yaml" ] && { ops_root="$r"; break; }
  r=$(dirname "$r")
done
mkdir -p "$ops_root/.claude/session"
printf '%s\n' "<owner/repo>#<pr>:security" > "$ops_root/.claude/session/active-reviewer"

On skill exit (after the review is posted), clear the marker:

rm -f "$ops_root/.claude/session/active-reviewer"

Nothing mechanically stops a build-class sub-agent writing the same file; what makes this marker legitimate is that a real, independent review happened. See .claude/hooks/warn-review-marker-write.sh and .claude/rules/pr-workflow.md § "Build agents cannot self-review".

Security Checklist

Baseline: OWASP Top 10 (2025) — supply-chain failures are now #3; use OWASP ASVS 5.0 as the verification baseline for these checks.

Secrets & Credentials

• No hardcoded secrets, API keys, or passwords
• Environment variables for sensitive data
• No secrets in logs or error messages

Injection Prevention

• Parameterised queries (no SQL injection)
• No command injection
• No template injection

XSS Prevention

• User input sanitised before rendering
• No unsafe dangerouslySetInnerHTML
• No eval() with user input

Authentication & Authorisation

• Auth checks on protected routes
• Authorisation verified before data access
• Secure session management

Data Protection

• Sensitive data encrypted
• No PII in URLs or query strings
• Proper validation and sanitisation

API Security

• Rate limiting considered
• Input validation on endpoints
• No stack traces exposed
• CORS configured correctly

Severity Levels

Level	Action
CRITICAL	Block PR immediately
HIGH	Block PR, require fix
MEDIUM	Warn, recommend fix
LOW	Informational

Output

Posts a GitHub review with:

• Commit SHA
• Security checklist results
• Issues with severity
• Verdict

Invokes: Security Reviewer Agent (Hakim)

Persist the run + render trend

After the Security Reviewer agent posts the review — through the tracker-agnostic tracker_review_submit (gh PR / glab MR / custom host — #763), not a hardcoded gh pr review — persist a structured artefact via the shared audit-history lib so the security-review trend across PRs becomes legible. See docs/agdr/AgDR-0019-audit-artefact-persistence.md for the schema rationale.

1. Resolve project name + score + verdict

<project-name> is the project's registered name in apexyard.projects.yaml, derived from the PR's repo. If the project isn't registered, use the basename of the repo and tell the operator to /handover it for cross-machine trend continuity.

Compute a single headline score from the severity distribution of the findings in the review:

score = max(0, 100 - 25*critical - 10*high - 3*medium - 1*low)

Compute the verdict by the worst-severity rule:

Worst severity present	Verdict
critical or high	fail
medium only	conditional
low only / none	pass

2. Build payload + body, persist via the lib

source "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)/.claude/hooks/_lib-audit-history.sh"

# Lowercase severity in the payload — the lib's stats derivation expects
# critical / high / medium / low / info. The visible review on the PR
# can use whatever capitalisation reads best.
payload=$(mktemp); cat > "$payload" <<'EOF'
{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "findings": [
    {"id": "F1", "severity": "critical", "status": "open", "summary": "Unsanitised user input in SQL"},
    {"id": "F2", "severity": "high",     "status": "open", "summary": "JWT signature not verified"}
  ]
}
EOF

# Body: a markdown summary of the security review for this PR, formatted
# per templates/audits/security-review.md. Include the diff scope, findings
# table, dependency vulnerabilities, secrets-scan results, and recommendations.
body=$(mktemp); cat > "$body" <<'EOF'
## Scope

PR <number>; reviewed `<branch>..main` (X files, Y +/- lines).

## Findings

| # | Severity | OWASP class | Finding | File:Line | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | critical | A03 Injection | Unsanitised user input concatenated into SQL | `src/users.ts:42` | open |
| F2 | high | A07 Auth failure | JWT signature not verified | `src/auth.ts:18` | open |

## Dependency vulnerabilities

(... output of `npm audit` or `pip audit`  critical+high ...)



(... checks per templates/audits/security-review.md ...)



1. F1 — fix injection vector before merge
2. F2 — verify JWT signatures
EOF

ts=$( -u +)
audit_run_persist     50  < 
 -f  

3. Render the trend section

audit_render_trend "<project-name>" "security-review" 5

• < 2 prior runs → silent (no trend section). Don't append anything.
• ≥ 2 prior runs → prints a markdown trend block (heading + table + ASCII chart of score over time) to stdout. Append it to this run's MD artefact so the PR-by-PR security trend is visible.

4. Opt-in commit (history-tracked marker)

By default the dimension's runs/ JSON files are gitignored. The lib applies a .gitignore based on the presence of the marker:

# Opt in to commit security-review history for this project
touch projects/<name>/audits/security-review/.audit-history-tracked

The MD artefacts at <dim_dir>/<ts>.md are committed regardless — they are the durable human-readable artefact of every PR's security review.

---

Part of ApexYard — multi-project SDLC framework for Claude Code · MIT.