agentsclimarketplace

Owasp security review

Skill jgamaraalv/delivery-loop/.claude/skills/owasp-security-review

Continuous fullstack delivery loops — orchestrates frontend, backend, and quality subagents (behaviour drivers, engineers, UI/UX specialist, code/security reviewers, architects) in a test → diagnose → fix → review → secure → re-test cycle until the work is production-ready

Install
npx -y skills add jgamaraalv/delivery-loop --skill owasp-security-review

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Review code and architectures against the OWASP Top 10:2025. Use to audit for vulnerabilities, guide remediation, or write secure code. Triggers: "security review", "OWASP audit", "check for vulnerabilities", "is this code secure".

SKILL.md

6.5 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

OWASP Top 10:2025 Security Review

<quick_reference>

Quick reference

#CategoryKey riskAvg incidence
A01Broken Access ControlUnauthorized data access, privilege escalation, SSRF, CSRF3.74%
A02Security MisconfigurationDefault creds, verbose errors, missing hardening, XXE3.00%
A03Software Supply Chain FailuresVulnerable/malicious dependencies, compromised build pipelines5.72%
A04Cryptographic FailuresWeak algorithms, hardcoded keys, missing encryption, weak hashing3.80%
A05InjectionSQLi, XSS, command injection, LDAP/XPath/EL injection3.08%
A06Insecure DesignMissing threat modeling, business logic flaws, insufficient controls1.86%
A07Authentication FailuresCredential stuffing, weak passwords, session fixation, missing MFA2.92%
A08Software/Data Integrity FailuresUnsigned updates, insecure deserialization, untrusted CDN code2.75%
A09Security Logging & Alerting FailuresMissing audit logs, no alerting, log injection, sensitive data in logs3.91%
A10Mishandling of Exceptional ConditionsFailing open, info leakage via errors, unchecked return values2.95%

Severity classification

Use these severity levels when reporting findings:

  • Critical: Directly exploitable, leads to full system compromise or mass data breach (e.g., SQLi with no parameterization, hardcoded admin credentials, missing auth on admin endpoints).
  • High: Exploitable with moderate effort, significant data exposure or privilege escalation (e.g., IDOR, weak password hashing, SSRF, deserialization of untrusted data).
  • Medium: Exploitable under specific conditions, limited impact (e.g., missing CSRF protection, verbose error messages, missing security headers).
  • Low: Defense-in-depth issue, minimal direct impact (e.g., missing rate limiting, incomplete logging, suboptimal crypto configuration).

</quick_reference>

<workflow>

Workflows

<phase_1_code_review>

Code review for security

Systematically check the code against each relevant category:

  1. Identify the code's surface area — Does it handle auth? User input? File uploads? External data? Crypto? Error responses?
  2. Select relevant categories from the table above based on the surface area.
  3. Load the reference file for each relevant category and check the code against the "What to look for" section.
  4. Report findings grouped by category with severity (Critical/High/Medium/Low), the specific code location, and a concrete fix.

Priority order for review (highest impact first):

  • [CRITICAL] Input handling code → A05 (Injection), A01 (Access Control)
  • [CRITICAL] Auth/session code → A07 (Authentication), A01 (Access Control)
  • [HIGH] Data storage/transmission → A04 (Cryptographic Failures)
  • [HIGH] Configuration/deployment → A02 (Security Misconfiguration)
  • [HIGH] Dependencies → A03 (Supply Chain)
  • [MEDIUM] Error handling → A10 (Exceptional Conditions), A09 (Logging)
  • [MEDIUM] Architecture/design → A06 (Insecure Design)
  • [MEDIUM] Data integrity → A08 (Integrity Failures) </phase_1_code_review>

<phase_2_audit_checklist>

Security audit checklist

Generate a checklist for a feature or codebase:

  1. Read the feature/codebase to understand its scope.
  2. For each of the 10 categories, determine if it applies.
  3. For applicable categories, load the reference file and produce a checklist of items to verify.
  4. Output a markdown checklist grouped by category. </phase_2_audit_checklist>

<phase_3_remediation>

Remediation guidance

When a vulnerability is identified:

  1. Classify it into the correct OWASP category.
  2. Load the corresponding reference file.
  3. Apply the prevention checklist to produce a specific, actionable fix.
  4. Provide a code example of the fix when possible. </phase_3_remediation>
</workflow> <references>

Reference files

Load the relevant file when you need detailed guidance for a specific category:

</references> <output> When reporting security findings, use the template in [template.md](template.md) for each finding. </output>

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.