| name | kiss-security-review |
| description | Reviews a feature's code + config against OWASP Top 10:2025 and common CWE patterns. Produces a per-feature security review with findings, severity, and remediation outlines. Does not deploy, write exploits, or modify code. Use when reviewing security posture, checking for OWASP vulnerabilities, or performing a pre-release security audit. |
| compatibility | Requires kiss project structure with .kiss/ directory |
| metadata | {"author":"github-kiss","source":"agent-skills/kiss-security-review/kiss-security-review.md"} |
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
Audience and tone (interactive mode)
When KISS_AGENT_MODE=interactive (the default), assume the user
has limited technical background and limited domain knowledge
— they may know basics but lack deep expertise in this skill's
area. Run this skill as a guided questionnaire:
- One question at a time. No walls of questions.
- Yes / no first. Phrase so
yes, no, not sure, or skip
is a valid answer.
- Translate jargon, don't strip it. Use the technical term but
always pair it with a plain-English gloss the first time it
appears.
- Choices, not blank fields. When yes/no isn't enough, offer
2-4 lettered options (A/B/C/D) with one-line plain-language
descriptions of the trade-off. Always include "Not sure — pick
a sensible default".
- Always recommend. State the option you would pick and why in
one sentence so the user can reply "yes" / "ok" to accept. Pull
defaults from upstream artefacts (spec, architecture, ADRs,
standards) before asking blank.
- Show, don't ask. When upstream artefacts already imply an
answer, propose it as a pre-filled finding and ask for a
yes / no confirmation rather than asking the user to fill in a
blank.
not sure / skip triggers a sensible default, marked
"(default applied — confirm later)" in the artefact, and a debt
entry in this skill's debt file.
When KISS_AGENT_MODE=auto (or --auto), skip the questionnaire
entirely: apply sensible defaults from upstream artefacts and log
decisions to the parent agent's decision log.
Inputs
.kiss/context.yml- Source files changed for
current.feature
{context.paths.docs}/architecture/c4-container.md (attack
surface){context.paths.docs}/architecture/intake.md (compliance regime){context.paths.docs}/decisions/ADR-*.md (auth / crypto choices)
Outputs
{context.paths.docs}/reviews/<feature>/security.md{context.paths.docs}/reviews/security-debts.md (append,
shared across features)
Context Update
Does not mutate .kiss/context.yml.
Handoffs
kiss-dependency-audit complements with third-party CVE scan.bug-fixer reads Critical / High severity findings.kiss-status-report reads security-debts.extract for
escalations.
AI authoring scope
Does: walk each OWASP Top 10:2025 category against the feature's
code and config, identify specific file:line findings, outline
remediation per finding, and link to authoritative references (OWASP
cheat sheet, CWE catalogue).
Does not: run exploits; pentest live systems; commit to a
"secure / insecure" label without stated assumptions; modify
code.
Usage
<SKILL_DIR> = the integration's skills root (e.g. .claude/skills/
for Claude Code, .agents/skills/ for Antigravity / Codex,
.cursor/skills/ for Cursor, .windsurf/workflows/ for Windsurf).
Scripts live at <SKILL_DIR>/<skill-name>/scripts/….
SR_COMPLIANCE="gdpr,soc2" bash <SKILL_DIR>/kiss-security-review/scripts/bash/review.sh --auto
Answer keys
| Key | Meaning | Default |
|---|
SR_SCOPE | glob of files to review | src/** |
SR_COMPLIANCE | comma list (gdpr / hipaa / pci-dss / soc2 / iso27001) | empty |
SR_THREAT_MODEL | stride / linddun / none | stride |
References
references/owasp-top10-2025.md — the ten categories + smell
patterns + remediation outlines.references/stride-guide.md — STRIDE threat-modelling questions.
