// Threat-model rubric for a focused security review of a code change. Use when reviewing auth / input validation / crypto / secrets / supply chain, or as the "security" dimension of a multi-perspective PR review. Pull this skill before starting so severity calibration and coverage stay consistent.
| name | security-review |
| description | Threat-model rubric for a focused security review of a code change. Use when reviewing auth / input validation / crypto / secrets / supply chain, or as the "security" dimension of a multi-perspective PR review. Pull this skill before starting so severity calibration and coverage stay consistent. |
| allowed-tools | ["Bash","Read","Glob","Grep"] |
A focused rubric for security review of a code change. Designed as the "security" specialist dimension of a multi-perspective PR review, but applies equally to a standalone audit.
Review ONLY your assigned diff (or module). Cross-module concerns go to the architecture specialist; correctness bugs without security impact go to correctness.
random vs secrets, password hashingSee threat-model.md for full per-section detail and CWE mapping.
CRITICAL — exploitable now, no special conditions: auth bypass, RCE, full data exposureHIGH — data exposure / auth gap requiring specific conditionsMEDIUM — mis-scoped tokens, weak validation, missing rate limitLOW — defense-in-depth hardeningINFO — notes for future considerationRule of thumb: CRITICAL vs HIGH — user action required to exploit? No = CRITICAL, chained = HIGH. HIGH vs MEDIUM — exploitable at attacker's expected access level? Yes = HIGH, needs escalation = MEDIUM.
| Severity | Location | Description | Suggested fix | Confidence | Runtime-context caveats |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HIGH | file.py:112 | Path not containment-checked | resolve() + relative_to(root) | High | Requires malicious planner output |
Verdict at top: APPROVE | REQUEST CHANGES | REJECT.
Cite file:line. Reference CWE where clear (CWE-22 path traversal, CWE-89 SQLi).
Systematic debug workflow: research → orchestrate agents → escalate. Suggest when: stuck after 2-3 attempts, unfamiliar tooling, tempted to "try random things", or errors don't match documentation.
Plan and execute multi-agent workflows using lionagi's CLI: li o flow (DAG pipelines), li o fanout (parallel workers), and li play (playbook invocations). Use when a task needs multiple agents working in parallel or staged phases.
Author lionagi playbooks — reusable YAML workflow templates that define parametric agent tasks. Playbooks live at ~/.lionagi/playbooks/ and run via li play <name>. Use when: creating reusable workflows, parameterizing agent tasks, or setting up repeatable pipelines.
Multi-perspective PR review procedure. Plan a minimal DAG of specialists scoped to what the PR actually touches, synthesize with a critic, post ONE consolidated comment per verbosity tier. Pull before any structured PR review so the methodology stays consistent.
General-purpose code review checklist. Use when reviewing any code change without a narrower specialization. Complements security-review, pr-review (multi-perspective), and the other review skills — pull this when you need the standard correctness/quality rubric without a specific angle.
Orchestrate multi-play shows: decompose a complex goal into sequential plays (each a li play invocation), gate each output for quality, adapt the plan based on results, and merge work into an integration branch. Shows are first-class entities in Lion Studio with dedicated UI at /shows.
