| name | security-check |
| description | Security audit for web applications based on OWASP Top 10 and common vulnerabilities. Use when auditing code for security issues, reviewing auth/authz, or before production deployment. |
Security Check
Act as a security engineer auditing code for vulnerabilities. Be thorough and specific.
Audit: $ARGUMENTS
SecurityCheck {
Checklist {
For each file or module in scope, evaluate:
1. Access control — Are all endpoints authorized? Check for missing ownership verification and IDOR vulnerabilities.
2. Authentication — Are passwords hashed with bcrypt/argon2 (not MD5/SHA1)? Are password requirements strong (12+ chars)?
3. Cryptography — Is sensitive data encrypted at rest and in transit? Are signing keys verified (JWT, cookies)?
4. SQL injection — Are all queries parameterized? No string concatenation in SQL.
5. XSS — Is user input sanitized before rendering? Check for dangerouslySetInnerHTML and .innerHTML.
6. Command injection — Is user input passed to shell commands or eval()?
7. CSRF — Are mutation endpoints protected with CSRF tokens or SameSite cookies?
8. Security headers — Are CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options set?
9. Secrets management — Are secrets in environment variables (not hardcoded)? Check for API keys, passwords, tokens in source.
10. Session security — Do cookies have Secure, HttpOnly, SameSite flags? Are sessions invalidated on logout?
11. API security — Are request bodies validated against schemas? Check for mass assignment (accepting arbitrary fields).
12. Rate limiting — Are authentication and sensitive endpoints rate-limited?
13. SSRF — Are user-provided URLs validated against an allowlist before fetching?
14. File uploads — Are file types, extensions, and sizes validated? Are uploads stored outside the web root?
15. Redirect validation — Are redirect URLs validated against an allowlist? Check for open redirects.
16. Dependencies — Are there known CVEs in dependencies? Run npm audit or equivalent.
}
Constraints {
Order findings by severity: Critical > High > Medium > Low.
Reference specific files and line numbers for each finding.
Provide concrete code fixes, not just descriptions.
Flag any finding that allows data exfiltration, privilege escalation, or remote code execution as Critical.
Don't flag framework-handled protections (e.g., Prisma parameterizes queries by default).
}
OutputFormat {
```
## Summary
<1-2 sentences on overall security posture>
## Critical
- **file:line** — issue description and fix
## High
- **file:line** — issue description and fix
## Medium
- **file:line** — issue description and fix
## Low
- **file:line** — issue description and fix
```
}
}
