Security Review
SentryOfficialPublished by Sentry
- Skill
- Review and audit
- Security
- CC-BY-SA-4.0
- Medium risk
AutoGineer summary
Written by AutoGineer from the skill’s own files, not by the author
The Security Review skill provides a structured approach to auditing code for security vulnerabilities. It emphasizes deep research into data flow and context to distinguish between theoretical risks and truly exploitable issues. By focusing on attacker-controlled inputs and framework-specific mitigations, it reduces false positives and ensures that reported findings are actionable and high-confidence.
What it does
- Performs systematic security audits on provided code snippets or files.
- Traces data flow to confirm if inputs are attacker-controlled or server-controlled.
- Evaluates code against common vulnerability patterns like injection, XSS, and authentication flaws.
- Filters out false positives by checking for framework-level protections and sanitization.
- Categorizes findings by severity and confidence levels.
- Provides a standardized reporting format for identified vulnerabilities.
When to use it
- When you need to audit code for potential security vulnerabilities.
- When performing an OWASP-based security review.
- When you need to verify if a specific code pattern is exploitable.
- When checking for common security issues like SQL injection, XSS, or insecure authentication.
Advantages
- Reduces noise by filtering out theoretical issues and server-controlled configurations.
- Ensures high-confidence reporting by requiring codebase research before flagging.
- Provides clear, actionable remediation advice for identified vulnerabilities.
- Standardizes the security review process across different codebases.
Usage examples
- “Perform a security review on this file: [code snippet]”
- The agent will analyze the code, trace the data flow of inputs, and provide a report of any high-confidence vulnerabilities found, or state that none were identified.
- “Check this API endpoint for potential injection vulnerabilities.”
- The agent will examine the endpoint's input handling and database queries to determine if user input is properly parameterized or sanitized.
- “Audit this authentication logic for security issues.”
- The agent will review the authentication implementation against best practices, such as password storage algorithms and brute-force protections.
Install
Download the skill as a ZIP:
https://autogineer.com/agent-skills/getsentry/security-review/downloadUnzip it into the cross-client skills folder of your project:
mkdir -p .agents/skills && unzip security-review.zip -d .agents/skills
Documentation by Sentry
<!-- Reference material based on OWASP Cheat Sheet Series (CC BY-SA 4.0) https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/ -->
Security Review Skill
Identify exploitable security vulnerabilities in code. Report only HIGH CONFIDENCE findings—clear vulnerable patterns with attacker-controlled input.
Scope: Research vs. Reporting
CRITICAL DISTINCTION:
Report on: Only the specific file, diff, or code provided by the user
Research: The ENTIRE codebase to build confidence before reporting
Before flagging any issue, you MUST research the codebase to understand:
Where does this input actually come from? (Trace data flow)
Is there validation/sanitization elsewhere?
How is this configured? (Check settings, config files, middleware)
What framework protections exist?
Do NOT report issues based solely on pattern matching. Investigate first, then report only what you're confident is exploitable.
Confidence Levels
| Level | Criteria | Action |
|---|---|---|
| HIGH | Vulnerable pattern + attacker-controlled input confirmed | Report with severity |
| MEDIUM | Vulnerable pattern, input source unclear | Note as "Needs verification" |
| LOW | Theoretical, best practice, defense-in-depth | Do not report |
Do Not Flag
General Rules
Test files (unless explicitly reviewing test security)
Dead code, commented code, documentation strings
Patterns using constants or server-controlled configuration
Code paths that require prior authentication to reach (note the auth requirement instead)
Server-Controlled Values (NOT Attacker-Controlled)
These are configured by operators, not controlled by attackers:
| Source | Example | Why It's Safe |
|---|---|---|
| Django settings | settings.API_URL, settings.ALLOWED_HOSTS | Set via config/env at deployment |
| Environment variables | os.environ.get('DATABASE_URL') | Deployment configuration |
| Config files | config.yaml, app.config['KEY'] | Server-side files |
| Framework constants | django.conf.settings.* | Not user-modifiable |
| Hardcoded values | BASE_URL = "https://api.internal" | Compile-time constants |
SSRF Example - NOT a vulnerability:
# SAFE: URL comes from Django settings (server-controlled)
response = requests.get(f"{settings.SEER_AUTOFIX_URL}{path}")SSRF Example - IS a vulnerability:
# VULNERABLE: URL comes from request (attacker-controlled)
response = requests.get(request.GET.get('url'))Framework-Mitigated Patterns
Check language guides before flagging. Common false positives:
| Pattern | Why It's Usually Safe |
|---|---|
Django {{ variable }} | Auto-escaped by default |
React {variable} | Auto-escaped by default |
Vue {{ variable }} | Auto-escaped by default |
User.objects.filter(id=input) | ORM parameterizes queries |
cursor.execute("...%s", (input,)) | Parameterized query |
innerHTML = "<b>Loading...</b>" | Constant string, no user input |
Only flag these when:
Django:
{{ var|safe }},{% autoescape off %},mark_safe(user_input)React:
dangerouslySetInnerHTML={{__html: userInput}}Vue:
v-html="userInput"ORM:
.raw(),.extra(),RawSQL()with string interpolation
Review Process
1. Detect Context
What type of code am I reviewing?
| Code Type | Load These References |
|---|---|
| API endpoints, routes | authorization.md, authentication.md, injection.md |
| Django/DRF views, permission classes, object-level access | Use the django-access-review skill if available for access control; otherwise authorization.md |
| Frontend, templates | xss.md, csrf.md, modern-threats.md (DOM clobbering, prototype pollution) |
| File handling, uploads | file-security.md |
| Crypto, secrets, tokens | cryptography.md, data-protection.md |
| Data serialization | deserialization.md |
| External requests | ssrf.md |
| Business workflows | business-logic.md |
| GraphQL, REST design | api-security.md |
| Config, headers, CORS | misconfiguration.md |
| CI/CD, dependencies | supply-chain.md |
| Error handling | error-handling.md |
| Audit, logging | logging.md |
Object merging/cloning, __proto__, DOM id/name lookups, WebSocket handlers, LLM prompt construction | modern-threats.md |
2. Load Language Guide
Based on file extension or imports:
| Indicators | Guide |
|---|---|
.py, django, flask, fastapi | languages/python.md |
.js, .ts, express, react, vue, next | languages/javascript.md |
For other languages there is no dedicated guide; rely on the references/ files and verify framework protections directly in the codebase.
3. Load Infrastructure Guide (if applicable)
| File Type | Guide |
|---|---|
Dockerfile, .dockerignore | infrastructure/docker.md |
| GitHub Actions workflows | Use the gha-security-review skill if available; otherwise references/supply-chain.md |
| Other CI/CD pipelines, lockfiles, package manifests | references/supply-chain.md |
4. Research Before Flagging
For each potential issue, research the codebase to build confidence:
Where does this value actually come from? Trace the data flow.
Is it configured at deployment (settings, env vars) or from user input?
Is there validation, sanitization, or allowlisting elsewhere?
What framework protections apply?
Only report issues where you have HIGH confidence after understanding the broader context.
5. Verify Exploitability
For each potential finding, confirm:
Is the input attacker-controlled?
| Attacker-Controlled (Investigate) | Server-Controlled (Usually Safe) |
|---|---|
request.GET, request.POST, request.args | settings.X, app.config['X'] |
request.json, request.data, request.body | os.environ.get('X') |
request.headers (most headers) | Hardcoded constants |
request.cookies (unsigned) | Internal service URLs from config |
URL path segments: /users/<id>/ | Database content from admin/system |
| File uploads (content and names) | Signed session data |
| Database content from other users | Framework settings |
| WebSocket messages |
Does the framework mitigate this?
Check language guide for auto-escaping, parameterization
Check for middleware/decorators that sanitize
Is there validation upstream?
Input validation before this code
Sanitization libraries (DOMPurify, bleach, etc.)
6. Report HIGH Confidence Only
Skip theoretical issues. Report only what you've confirmed is exploitable after research.
Severity Classification
| Severity | Impact | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Direct exploit, severe impact, no auth required | RCE, SQL injection to data, auth bypass, hardcoded secrets |
| High | Exploitable with conditions, significant impact | Stored XSS, SSRF to metadata, IDOR to sensitive data |
| Medium | Specific conditions required, moderate impact | Reflected XSS, CSRF on state-changing actions, path traversal |
| Low | Defense-in-depth, minimal direct impact | Missing headers, verbose errors, weak algorithms in non-critical context |
Quick Patterns Reference
Always Flag (Critical)
eval(user_input) # Any language
exec(user_input) # Any language
pickle.loads(user_data) # Python
yaml.load(user_data) # Python (not safe_load)
unserialize($user_data) # PHP
deserialize(user_data) # Java ObjectInputStream
shell=True + user_input # Python subprocess
child_process.exec(user) # Node.jsAlways Flag (High)
innerHTML = userInput # DOM XSS
dangerouslySetInnerHTML={user} # React XSS
v-html="userInput" # Vue XSS
f"SELECT * FROM x WHERE {user}" # SQL injection
`SELECT * FROM x WHERE ${user}` # SQL injection
os.system(f"cmd {user_input}") # Command injectionAlways Flag (Secrets)
password = "hardcoded"
api_key = "sk-..."
AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY = "..."
private_key = "-----BEGIN"Check Context First (MUST Investigate Before Flagging)
# SSRF - ONLY if URL is from user input, NOT from settings/config
requests.get(request.GET['url']) # FLAG: User-controlled URL
requests.get(settings.API_URL) # SAFE: Server-controlled config
requests.get(f"{settings.BASE}/{x}") # CHECK: Is 'x' user input?
# Path traversal - ONLY if path is from user input
open(request.GET['file']) # FLAG: User-controlled path
open(settings.LOG_PATH) # SAFE: Server-controlled config
open(f"{BASE_DIR}/{filename}") # CHECK: Is 'filename' user input?
# Open redirect - ONLY if URL is from user input
redirect(request.GET['next']) # FLAG: User-controlled redirect
redirect(settings.LOGIN_URL) # SAFE: Server-controlled config
# Weak crypto - ONLY if used for security purposes
hashlib.md5(file_content) # SAFE: File checksums, caching
hashlib.md5(password) # FLAG: Password hashing
random.random() # SAFE: Non-security uses (UI, sampling)
random.random() for token # FLAG: Security tokens need secrets moduleOutput Format
## Security Review: [File/Component Name]
### Summary
- **Findings**: X (Y Critical, Z High, ...)
- **Risk Level**: Critical/High/Medium/Low
- **Confidence**: High/Mixed
### Findings
#### [VULN-001] [Vulnerability Type] (Severity)
- **Location**: `file.py:123`
- **Confidence**: High
- **Issue**: [What the vulnerability is]
- **Impact**: [What an attacker could do]
- **Evidence**:
```python
[Vulnerable code snippet]Fix: [How to remediate]
Needs Verification
[VERIFY-001] [Potential Issue]
Location:
file.py:456Question: [What needs to be verified]
If no vulnerabilities found, state: "No high-confidence vulnerabilities identified."
---
## Reference Files
### Core Vulnerabilities (`references/`)
| File | Covers |
|------|--------|
| `injection.md` | SQL, NoSQL, OS command, LDAP, template injection |
| `xss.md` | Reflected, stored, DOM-based XSS |
| `authorization.md` | Authorization, IDOR, privilege escalation |
| `authentication.md` | Sessions, credentials, password storage |
| `cryptography.md` | Algorithms, key management, randomness |
| `deserialization.md` | Pickle, YAML, Java, PHP deserialization |
| `file-security.md` | Path traversal, uploads, XXE |
| `ssrf.md` | Server-side request forgery |
| `csrf.md` | Cross-site request forgery |
| `data-protection.md` | Secrets exposure, PII, logging |
| `api-security.md` | REST, GraphQL, mass assignment |
| `business-logic.md` | Race conditions, workflow bypass |
| `modern-threats.md` | Prototype pollution, LLM injection, WebSocket |
| `misconfiguration.md` | Headers, CORS, debug mode, defaults |
| `error-handling.md` | Fail-open, information disclosure |
| `supply-chain.md` | Dependencies, build security |
| `logging.md` | Audit failures, log injection |
### Language Guides (`languages/`)
- `python.md` - Django, Flask, FastAPI patterns
- `javascript.md` - Node, Express, React, Vue, Next.js
### Infrastructure (`infrastructure/`)
- `docker.md` - Container securityFiles
- ATTRIBUTION.mdAdded by AutoGineer902 B
- LICENSE884 B
- SKILL.md11.5 KiB
- SPEC.md8.8 KiB
- infrastructure/docker.md9.2 KiB
- languages/javascript.md9.8 KiB
- languages/python.md9.3 KiB
- references/api-security.md12.4 KiB
- references/authentication.md8.9 KiB
- references/authorization.md9.8 KiB
- references/business-logic.md12.4 KiB
- references/cryptography.md8.5 KiB
- references/csrf.md9.7 KiB
- references/data-protection.md9.3 KiB
- references/deserialization.md10.0 KiB
- references/error-handling.md11.4 KiB
- references/file-security.md12.1 KiB
- references/injection.md6.7 KiB
- references/logging.md11.7 KiB
- references/misconfiguration.md10.1 KiB
- references/modern-threats.md13.0 KiB
- references/ssrf.md10.5 KiB
- references/supply-chain.md8.9 KiB
- references/xss.md7.4 KiB
references/authorization.md
Authorization Security Reference
Overview
Authorization verifies that a requested action or service is approved for a specific entity—distinct from authentication, which verifies identity. A user who has been authenticated is often not authorized to access every resource and perform every action.
Core Principles
1. Deny by Default
Every permission must be explicitly granted. The default position is denial.
# VULNERABLE: Implicit allow
def get_document(request, doc_id):
return Document.objects.get(id=doc_id)
# SAFE: Explicit authorization
def get_document(request, doc_id):
doc = Document.objects.get(id=doc_id)
if not request.user.has_permission('read', doc):
raise PermissionDenied()
return doc2. Enforce Least Privilege
Assign users only the minimum necessary permissions for their role.
# Define minimal permission sets
ROLE_PERMISSIONS = {
'viewer': ['read'],
'editor': ['read', 'write'],
'admin': ['read', 'write', 'delete', 'admin']
}3. Validate Permissions on Every Request
Never rely on UI hiding or client-side checks alone.
# VULNERABLE: Authorization only on some endpoints
@app.route('/api/admin/users', methods=['GET'])
@require_admin # Good
def list_users():
pass
@app.route('/api/admin/users/<id>', methods=['DELETE'])
def delete_user(id): # Missing authorization check!
User.delete(id)
# SAFE: Consistent authorization
@app.route('/api/admin/users/<id>', methods=['DELETE'])
@require_admin # Always check
def delete_user(id):
User.delete(id)Insecure Direct Object References (IDOR)
The Vulnerability
IDOR occurs when attackers access or modify objects by manipulating identifiers.
# VULNERABLE: No ownership validation
@app.route('/api/orders/<order_id>')
def get_order(order_id):
return Order.query.get(order_id).to_dict()
# Attack: User A accesses /api/orders/123 (User B's order)Prevention
1. Validate Object Ownership
# SAFE: Scope queries to current user
@app.route('/api/orders/<order_id>')
def get_order(order_id):
order = Order.query.filter_by(
id=order_id,
user_id=current_user.id # Ownership check
).first_or_404()
return order.to_dict()2. Use Indirect References
# Map user-specific indices to actual IDs
def get_user_order_map(user_id):
orders = Order.query.filter_by(user_id=user_id).all()
return {i: order.id for i, order in enumerate(orders)}
@app.route('/api/orders/<int:index>')
def get_order(index):
order_map = get_user_order_map(current_user.id)
real_id = order_map.get(index)
if not real_id:
raise NotFound()
return Order.query.get(real_id).to_dict()3. Perform Object-Level Checks
# Check permission on the specific object, not just object type
def check_permission(user, action, resource):
# Bad: Type-level check only
# if user.can('read', 'Order'): return True
# Good: Object-level check
if resource.owner_id == user.id:
return True
if resource.organization_id in user.organization_ids:
return user.has_org_permission(action, resource.organization_id)
return FalseAccess Control Models
Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)
Simple but limited. Good for straightforward permission structures.
ROLES = {
'admin': {'create', 'read', 'update', 'delete'},
'editor': {'create', 'read', 'update'},
'viewer': {'read'}
}
def has_permission(user, action):
return action in ROLES.get(user.role, set())Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC)
More flexible. Supports complex policies with multiple attributes.
def evaluate_policy(subject, action, resource, environment):
"""
Subject: user attributes (role, department, clearance)
Action: what they're trying to do
Resource: object attributes (owner, classification, type)
Environment: context (time, location, device)
"""
# Example: Only managers can approve during business hours
if action == 'approve':
return (
subject.role == 'manager' and
resource.department == subject.department and
environment.is_business_hours
)
return FalseRelationship-Based Access Control (ReBAC)
Access based on relationships between entities.
# User can view document if:
# - They own it
# - They're in a group that has access
# - They're in the same organization
def can_view(user, document):
if document.owner_id == user.id:
return True
if user.groups.intersection(document.shared_with_groups):
return True
if document.org_id == user.org_id and document.org_visible:
return True
return FalseCommon Vulnerabilities
Horizontal Privilege Escalation
Accessing resources belonging to other users at the same privilege level.
# VULNERABLE: User A can access User B's profile
@app.route('/api/profile/<user_id>')
def get_profile(user_id):
return User.query.get(user_id).profile
# SAFE: Only access own profile
@app.route('/api/profile')
def get_profile():
return current_user.profileVertical Privilege Escalation
Accessing higher-privilege functionality.
# VULNERABLE: Hidden admin endpoint
@app.route('/api/admin/delete-all')
def delete_all():
# No authorization check
Database.delete_all()
# SAFE: Explicit admin check
@app.route('/api/admin/delete-all')
@require_role('super_admin')
def delete_all():
Database.delete_all()Path Traversal in Authorization
# VULNERABLE: Path-based authorization bypass
@app.route('/files/<path:filepath>')
def get_file(filepath):
# Attacker: /files/../../../etc/passwd
return send_file(filepath)
# SAFE: Validate and sanitize path
@app.route('/files/<path:filepath>')
def get_file(filepath):
base_dir = '/app/user_files'
full_path = os.path.realpath(os.path.join(base_dir, filepath))
if not full_path.startswith(base_dir):
raise PermissionDenied()
return send_file(full_path)Mass Assignment
# VULNERABLE: User can set admin flag
@app.route('/api/users/<id>', methods=['PATCH'])
def update_user(id):
user = User.query.get(id)
user.update(**request.json) # Includes is_admin!
# SAFE: Allowlist fields
@app.route('/api/users/<id>', methods=['PATCH'])
def update_user(id):
ALLOWED_FIELDS = {'name', 'email', 'bio'}
user = User.query.get(id)
data = {k: v for k, v in request.json.items() if k in ALLOWED_FIELDS}
user.update(**data)Implementation Patterns
Middleware/Filter Pattern
# Apply authorization consistently via middleware
class AuthorizationMiddleware:
def process_request(self, request):
if not self.is_authorized(request):
raise PermissionDenied()
def is_authorized(self, request):
# Extract resource and action from request
resource = self.get_resource(request)
action = self.get_action(request)
return request.user.has_permission(action, resource)Policy Objects
class DocumentPolicy:
def __init__(self, user, document):
self.user = user
self.document = document
def can_view(self):
return (
self.document.is_public or
self.document.owner_id == self.user.id or
self.user.is_admin
)
def can_edit(self):
return self.document.owner_id == self.user.id
def can_delete(self):
return self.document.owner_id == self.user.id or self.user.is_admin
# Usage
policy = DocumentPolicy(current_user, document)
if not policy.can_view():
raise PermissionDenied()Grep Patterns for Detection
# Missing authorization checks
grep -rn "def get_\|def post_\|def put_\|def delete_" --include="*.py" | grep -v "@require\|@login\|permission"
# Direct object access without ownership check
grep -rn "\.get(.*id)\|\.filter(id=" --include="*.py" | grep -v "user_id\|owner"
# Mass assignment
grep -rn "\*\*request\.\|update(\*\*\|create(\*\*" --include="*.py"
# Path traversal risk
grep -rn "os\.path\.join.*request\|open(.*request" --include="*.py"
# Admin endpoints
grep -rn "admin\|superuser" --include="*.py" | grep "route\|endpoint"Authorization Testing
Test Cases
Horizontal access: Can User A access User B's resources?
Vertical access: Can regular users access admin endpoints?
Missing checks: Are all endpoints protected?
Parameter tampering: Can IDs be manipulated?
Path traversal: Can file paths escape allowed directories?
Mass assignment: Can protected fields be modified?
Test Automation
def test_horizontal_access():
user_a = create_user()
user_b = create_user()
resource = create_resource(owner=user_a)
# User B should not access User A's resource
client.login(user_b)
response = client.get(f'/api/resources/{resource.id}')
assert response.status_code == 403
def test_idor_enumeration():
# Try sequential IDs
for i in range(1, 100):
response = client.get(f'/api/resources/{i}')
if response.status_code == 200:
# Should be denied or return 404, not 200
assert False, f"IDOR vulnerability: /api/resources/{i}"References
Requirements and compatibility
Works with: Claude Code, Claude apps, OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Gemini CLI, Kiro, OpenCode, Goose, Amp, Roo Code, JetBrains Junie, Factory Droid, Devin (ex-Windsurf), Mistral Vibe, OpenHands, Letta
“Works with” means the tool reads the open Agent Skills format; a skill written for one tool may use features others lack.
Needs: Declares allowed tools, Needs an API key, Needs Python
Security
What our scanner noticed· Medium risk
- References to credential files
- Instructions that use the network
- Encoded commands that are executed
- Downloads piped into a shell
A static scan is not a guarantee. Skills are third-party content: review a skill before you let an agent use it.
Attribution and licence
- Published by
- Sentry
- Publisher
- Sentry (Official)
- Source
- getsentry/skills · skills/security-review · commit e94f222
- Licence
- Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (redistribution allowed)
- ATTRIBUTION.md (written by AutoGineer)
- Synced
AutoGineer is not affiliated with or endorsed by Sentry or Sentry.
Download ZIP
The ZIP holds the skill’s files, its licence files and an ATTRIBUTION.md. Download security-review.zip