security-review

name	security-review
description	[OMX] Run a comprehensive security review on code

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-5.5 Guidance Alignment

• Default to outcome-first progress and completion reporting: state the target result, evidence, validation status, and stop condition before adding process 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; stop once enough evidence exists.
• Continue through clear, low-risk, reversible next steps automatically; ask only when the next step is materially branching, destructive, credentialed, external-production, or preference-dependent.

Delegates to the security-reviewer agent (THOROUGH tier) for deep security analysis:

1. 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   • A06: Vulnerable and Outdated Components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)

2. Secrets Detection

   • Hardcoded API keys
   • Passwords in source code
   • Private keys in repo
   • Tokens and credentials
   • Connection strings with secrets

3. Input Validation

   • All user inputs sanitized
   • SQL/NoSQL injection prevention
   • Command injection prevention
   • XSS prevention (output escaping)
   • Path traversal prevention

4. Authentication/Authorization

   • Proper password hashing (bcrypt, argon2)
   • Session management security
   • Access control enforcement
   • JWT implementation security

5. Dependency Security

   • Run npm audit for known vulnerabilities
   • Check for outdated dependencies
   • Identify high-severity CVEs

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

1. Form your OWN security analysis FIRST - Complete the review independently
2. Consult for validation - Cross-check findings with Codex
3. Critically evaluate - Never blindly adopt external findings
4. 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

1. Rotate exposed secrets - Immediate (within 1 hour)
2. Fix CRITICAL - Urgent (within 24 hours)
3. Fix HIGH - Important (within 1 week)
4. Fix MEDIUM - Planned (within 1 month)
5. 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 issues

Review, 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