agentsclimarketplace

Secure review

Skill Rootx202/appsec-skills/secure-review

AppSec Skills — 15 plug-and-play Claude Code security skills that audit, harden, and fix any website or app before you ship it. OWASP Top 10, auth, API, database, frontend, backend, cloud, dependencies, secrets, and pentest-style checks — all defensive, all evidence-based.

Install
npx -y skills add Rootx202/appsec-skills --skill secure-review

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

3 things to look at

  • 23 days oldThe repository was created 23 days ago. New is not bad, but a brand new repository carrying a familiar-sounding name is the shape a typosquat arrives in, and there has been no time for anyone else to find a problem with it.
  • no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
  • 2 stars2 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

Lightweight secure-code-review checklist for a single pull request, diff, function, or file — as opposed to a full-project audit. Use when the user shares a diff/PR and asks for a review before merge, wants a quick pre-merge security pass, or asks for a secure coding checklist to follow while actively developing a feature.

SKILL.md

2.5 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Secure Review — Fast Pre-Merge Security Checklist

A fast, focused security review for a single diff, PR, or file — not a full-project audit (that's code-audit).

When to use this

  • The user shares a diff or a single file and asks for a review
  • Before merging a branch
  • As a running checklist during active development

Quick Checklist

User Input

  • Is every user input validated (type, length, format) before use?
  • Is a trusted validation library used (zod, joi, pydantic, class-validator) instead of scattered manual checks?

Queries and Commands

  • Parameterized queries only — zero string concatenation in SQL/NoSQL queries
  • No system command invoked with raw user input

Output

  • Any HTML rendering of user input goes through proper escaping
  • API responses don't leak sensitive fields (password hashes, internal-only IDs, other users' data)

Authorization

  • Every new route/endpoint is protected by identity + authorization middleware
  • No reliance on client-supplied values to determine permissions

Secrets and Configuration

  • No hardcoded keys/secrets anywhere in the diff
  • New environment variables are documented in .env.example without real values

Errors and Logging

  • User-facing error messages are generic; technical detail goes to logs only
  • No sensitive data (passwords, tokens, PII) written to logs

Dependencies (if the diff adds any)

  • New dependency is from a reputable source, actively maintained, and doesn't introduce a known CVE (spot-check via dependency-security if unsure)

Output Style

For every unmet item, show:

⚠️ [Issue title]
File: path:line
Why it's a problem: [one line]
Suggested fix: [one line or short snippet]

Always close with a summary: items met / total, and a clear verdict — Approve, or Request changes — with a one-line justification.

Rules

  • Stay fast and focused; don't turn this into a full-project audit unless explicitly asked (then hand off to code-audit).
  • Never evaluate code you can't actually see — if the referenced file wasn't shared, ask for it rather than assuming.

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.