Generated banner for Review Hog Perspective Contracts Security
Generated logo for Review Hog Perspective Contracts Security

Review Hog Perspective Contracts Security

PostHogOfficialPublished by PostHog

  • Skill
  • Review and audit
  • Software development
  • MIT
  • No issues found

From the author

Checks security, input validation, and API compatibility. Reports security and contract issues only.
— the description by PostHog

AutoGineer summary

Written by AutoGineer from the skill’s own files, not by the author

The Contracts & Security review perspective is designed to act as a focused audit layer during the code review process. It specifically targets the safety and compatibility of code changes by examining API contracts, security vulnerabilities, input validation, and schema alignment. By isolating these concerns from logic, performance, and style, it ensures that critical security and interface issues are identified without the noise of other review criteria.

What it does

  • Identifies potential security vulnerabilities like SQL injection, XSS, and prompt injection.
  • Validates API contracts for breaking changes, field removals, or data-type mismatches.
  • Checks for robust input validation and sanitization at all entry points.
  • Verifies consistency between database schemas, code models, and interface definitions.
  • Audits authentication and authorization implementations for potential gaps.
  • Ensures sensitive data handling practices are followed.

When to use it

  • During pull request reviews to ensure security and API stability.
  • When modifying database models or migration scripts.
  • When updating API endpoints or changing request/response formats.
  • When implementing new authentication or authorization logic.
  • When integrating external APIs or updating interface definitions.

Advantages

  • Provides a dedicated, specialized focus on high-risk areas like security and contracts.
  • Reduces the likelihood of breaking changes in production APIs.
  • Helps prevent common security vulnerabilities through systematic checks.
  • Promotes consistency across different layers of the application stack.
  • Simplifies the review process by separating security concerns from general logic.

Usage examples

“Review this PR chunk for security and contract issues.”
The agent will scan the code for missing input validation, potential SQL injection, or breaking changes in API schemas and report findings specifically related to these areas.
“Check if these changes to the user model break the API contract.”
The agent will analyze the model changes against existing interface definitions and report any schema mismatches or breaking changes to the API contract.

Install

  1. Download the skill as a ZIP:

    https://autogineer.com/agent-skills/posthog/review-hog-perspective-contracts-security/download
  2. Unzip it into the cross-client skills folder of your project:

    mkdir -p .agents/skills && unzip review-hog-perspective-contracts-security.zip -d .agents/skills

Documentation by PostHog

Review perspective: Contracts & Security

You are reviewing a PR chunk through the Contracts & Security perspective: is the code safe, and does it preserve compatibility? Concentrate on API contracts and breaking changes, security vulnerabilities, input validation, and schema / interface alignment.

This is one of several independent perspectives reviewing the same chunk in parallel — logic and performance are covered elsewhere. Stay in your lane, and report every security or contract issue you find without worrying about what another perspective might also report (overlap is resolved later by a separate deduplication step).

Primary investigation areas

  1. API contracts & breaking changes

    • Check for changed request / response formats

    • Identify removed or renamed fields

    • Validate data-type changes

    • Ensure version compatibility

    • Check GraphQL / REST contract compliance

  2. Security vulnerabilities

    • Look for SQL injection vulnerabilities

    • Check for XSS attack vectors

    • Identify prompt-injection risks (for LLM code)

    • Verify authentication / authorization checks

    • Ensure sensitive data is not exposed

  3. Input validation & boundaries

    • Verify validation at all entry points

    • Check input sanitization

    • Validate type safety

    • Ensure range and limit checks

    • Check for buffer-overflow risks

  4. Schema & interface alignment

    • Verify database schema matches code models

    • Check frontend / backend type consistency

    • Validate API specifications

    • Ensure migration compatibility

Investigation commands

  • Find API endpoints: rg "@action\(|@api_view\(|class \w+(ViewSet|APIView)" --type py -B 2 -A 5 (DRF endpoints; route wiring lives in urls.py / routes.py files)

  • Check input validation: rg "validate|sanitize|clean.*input" --type py -A 5

  • Find SQL queries: rg "execute|query|raw.*sql" --type py -B 2 -A 5

  • Check auth: rg "authenticate|authorize|permission|@login_required" --type py -B 2 -A 3

  • Find schema definitions: rg "class.*Model|Schema|Interface" --type py --type ts -A 10

Where to focus

Concentrate primary attention on:

  • API endpoints and controllers

  • Database models and migrations (critical for schema validation)

  • Type definitions and interfaces (*.d.ts, type annotations)

  • Authentication / authorization modules

  • Input validation and sanitization code

  • Data serialization / deserialization logic

  • External API integrations

  • API specification files (OpenAPI, GraphQL schemas) and security configuration files

Detect issues only in non-test files; reference docs and frontend-only UI components without data handling for context, but don't raise contract / security findings on them.

What to leave to other perspectives

  • Logic and correctness errors → Logic & Correctness

  • Performance optimizations and error-handling completeness → Performance & Reliability

  • Code style or formatting → not a PostHog Review concern

Key questions

  • Are all inputs properly validated and sanitized?

  • Could this code introduce security vulnerabilities?

  • Are API contracts maintained or properly versioned?

  • Is sensitive data properly protected?

  • Are there any breaking changes for API consumers?

  • Do schemas and interfaces align across layers?

What a valid finding looks like

A Contracts & Security finding relates to:

  • Security vulnerabilities (injection, XSS, etc.)

  • Breaking API changes

  • Missing input validation

  • Schema mismatches

  • Authentication / authorization gaps

  • Data-exposure risks

  • Contract violations

Files

LICENSE

MIT License

Copyright (c) 2025

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.

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.

Security

No issues found by our static scan· No issues found

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
PostHog
Publisher
PostHog (Official)
Source
PostHog/skills · skills/omnibus/review-hog-perspective-contracts-security · commit a5d30e7
Licence
MIT License (redistribution allowed)
  • LICENSE (added by AutoGineer from LICENSE)
  • ATTRIBUTION.md (written by AutoGineer)
Synced

AutoGineer is not affiliated with or endorsed by PostHog or PostHog.

Download ZIP

The ZIP holds the skill’s files, its licence files and an ATTRIBUTION.md. Download review-hog-perspective-contracts-security.zip