security-review
Runs a full OWASP/CWE security audit via isolated subagents. Use when the user types /security-review or explicitly requests a full security audit of the current code.
SKILL.md.claude/skills/security-review/SKILL.md
GitHubFull Security Audit (A01:2025–A10:2025 + LLM01:2025–LLM10:2025)
What this checks
Full repo audit against OWASP Web + LLM Top 10:2025 via a four-stage
pipeline: threat-model → hotspots → review → validate. Main context
dispatches subagents (threat-modeling, hotspot-mapping,
vulnerability-audit, design-review, finding-validate,
attack-chain-analysis) and renders findings; never reads code.
Vulnerable patterns
This skill is the orchestrator. The actual pattern catalog lives in
the per-category auto-invoking skills (injection, csrf, ssrf,
broken-access-control, authentication-failures, etc.) — the
vulnerability-audit subagent picks the right one per hotspot and
applies its Vulnerable patterns section. Skill-list maintenance
is automatic via .claude/skills/ directory contents; no separate
catalog file.
Procedure
Use only the Agent tool in main context. No Read/Grep/Glob/
Bash in main context. Stage prompts live in .claude/agents/:
threat-modeling, hotspot-mapping, design-review,
vulnerability-audit, finding-validate, attack-chain-analysis.
This skill is just the coordinator.
Copy this checklist as you progress:
- [ ] Stage 0 — threat-modeling returned
- [ ] Stage 1 — hotspot-mapping returned (one whole-repo call)
- [ ] Stages 1b+2 — design-review + N vulnerability-audit in ONE message
- [ ] Stage 2.5 — finding-validate returned; refuted findings dropped
- [ ] Stage 3 — attack-chain-analysis returned
- [ ] Stage 4 — findings table rendered with severity legend
- [ ] Stage 5 — suggested /security-cleanup to the user
Stage 0 — Threat model
Dispatch one threat-modeling subagent. It returns JSON with
purpose, deployment, trusted_inputs, untrusted_inputs. Thread this
into every later subagent.
Stage 1 — Hotspot map
Dispatch one hotspot-mapping subagent with the threat model.
Returns a JSON array of {file, lines, name, category, priority, why}
entries — the hotspot list for Stage 2.
Stages 1b + 2 — Design review and vulnerability audit (parallel)
Collapse hotspots by file first — group into {file: [hotspots]}.
Then in a SINGLE message, dispatch:
- One
design-reviewsubagent with the threat model. - One
vulnerability-auditsubagent per file with the threat model AND that file's hotspot list.trusted_inputs/untrusted_inputsinforms which sinks are reachable. Serial launches defeat parallelism.
Concatenate every returned findings array. Dedupe by (file, line).
Stage 2.5 — Validate findings
Dispatch one finding-validate subagent with the merged findings
array and the threat model JSON. It returns a JSON array of 0-based
indices to drop — findings refuted by concrete evidence at the
cited line (guard, sanitizer, correct API). [] is common. Remove
the indicated indices before Stage 3.
Stage 3 — Attack-chain analysis
Dispatch one attack-chain-analysis subagent with the threat model
AND the merged findings. The threat model informs effective severity
(does the chain cross an untrusted boundary?). Returns chain objects
with plain-English narratives, or [].
Stage 4 — Render
Emit # Security Review, then the legend Critical = anyone on the
internet can exploit. High = needs an account. Medium = limited blast
radius. Low = defense-in-depth. Then a findings table:
Severity / Where / What's wrong / How to fix (use the auditor's
finding/fix verbatim; append (category: <skill>) to What's
wrong). If chains exist, emit ## Attack chains with
### Chain N — <effective_severity> per chain as prose. One summary
line. Zero findings: Security review complete. No findings across N hotspots.
Stage 5 — Cleanup
Suggest /security-cleanup to apply fixes. Do not auto-rewrite.
Verification
- Every vulnerability has a finding with
severity,file:line, OWASP/CWE category, and a concrete fix -
finding/fixtext is plain language a non-security developer can act on - Response ends with a summary line