Scanning a codebase or file for security vulnerabilities
Running a security review or vulnerability check
Checking for SQL injection, XSS, command injection, or other injection flaws
Finding exposed API keys, hardcoded secrets, or credentials in code
Auditing dependencies for known CVEs
Reviewing authentication, authorization, or access control logic
Detecting insecure cryptography or weak randomness
Performing a data flow analysis to trace user input to dangerous sinks
Any request phrasing like "is my code secure?", "scan this file", or "check my repo for vulnerabilities"
Running /security-review or /security-review <path>

How This Skill Works

Unlike traditional static analysis tools that match patterns, this skill:

Reads code like a security researcher — understanding context, intent, and data flow
Traces across files — following how user input moves through your application
Self-verifies findings — re-examines each result to filter false positives
Assigns severity ratings — CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / INFO
Proposes targeted patches — every finding includes a concrete fix
Requires human approval — nothing is auto-applied; you always review first

Execution Workflow

Follow these steps in order every time:

Determine what to scan:

If a path was provided (/security-review src/auth/), scan only that scope
If no path given, scan the entire project starting from the root
Identify the language(s) and framework(s) in use (check package.json, requirements.txt, go.mod, Cargo.toml, pom.xml, Gemfile, composer.json, etc.)
Read references/language-patterns.md to load language-specific vulnerability patterns

Before scanning source code, audit dependencies first (fast wins):

Node.js: Check package.json + package-lock.json for known vulnerable packages
Python: Check requirements.txt / pyproject.toml / Pipfile
Java: Check pom.xml / build.gradle
Ruby: Check Gemfile.lock
Rust: Check Cargo.toml
Go: Check go.sum
Flag packages with known CVEs, deprecated crypto libs, or suspiciously old pinned versions
Read references/vulnerable-packages.md for a curated watchlist

Scan ALL files (including config, env, CI/CD, Dockerfiles, IaC) for:

Hardcoded API keys, tokens, passwords, private keys
.env files accidentally committed
Secrets in comments or debug logs
Cloud credentials (AWS, GCP, Azure, Stripe, Twilio, etc.)
Database connection strings with credentials embedded
Read references/secret-patterns.md for regex patterns and entropy heuristics to apply

This is the core scan. Reason about the code — don't just pattern-match. Read references/vuln-categories.md for full details on each category.

Injection Flaws

SQL Injection: raw queries with string interpolation, ORM misuse, second-order SQLi
XSS: unescaped output, dangerouslySetInnerHTML, innerHTML, template injection
Command Injection: exec/spawn/system with user input
LDAP, XPath, Header, Log injection

Authentication & Access Control

Data Handling

Cryptography

Business Logic

After the per-file scan, perform a holistic review:

Trace user-controlled input from entry points (HTTP params, headers, body, file uploads) all the way to sinks (DB queries, exec calls, HTML output, file writes)
Identify vulnerabilities that only appear when looking at multiple files together
Check for insecure trust boundaries between services or modules

For EACH finding:

Output the full report in the format defined in references/report-format.md.

For every CRITICAL and HIGH finding, generate a concrete patch:

Explicitly state: "Review each patch before applying. Nothing has been changed yet."

Severity	Meaning	Example
🔴 CRITICAL	Immediate exploitation risk, data breach likely	SQLi, RCE, auth bypass
🟠 HIGH	Serious vulnerability, exploit path exists	XSS, IDOR, hardcoded secrets
🟡 MEDIUM	Exploitable with conditions or chaining	CSRF, open redirect, weak crypto
🔵 LOW	Best practice violation, low direct risk	Verbose errors, missing headers
⚪ INFO	Observation worth noting, not a vulnerability	Outdated dependency (no CVE)

Always produce a findings summary table first (counts by severity)
Never auto-apply any patch — present patches for human review only
Always include a confidence rating per finding (High / Medium / Low)
Group findings by category, not by file
Be specific — include file path, line number, and the exact vulnerable code snippet
Explain the risk in plain English — what could an attacker do with this?
If the codebase is clean, say so clearly: "No vulnerabilities found" with what was scanned

For detailed detection guidance, load the following reference files as needed:

references/vuln-categories.md — Deep reference for every vulnerability category with detection signals, safe patterns, and escalation checkers
- Search patterns: SQL injection, XSS, command injection, SSRF, BOLA, IDOR, JWT, CSRF, secrets, cryptography, race condition, path traversal
references/secret-patterns.md — Regex patterns, entropy-based detection, and CI/CD secret risks
- Search patterns: API key, token, private key, connection string, entropy, .env, GitHub Actions, Docker, Terraform
references/language-patterns.md — Framework-specific vulnerability patterns for JavaScript, Python, Java, PHP, Go, Ruby, and Rust
- Search patterns: Express, React, Next.js, Django, Flask, FastAPI, Spring Boot, PHP, Go, Rails, Rust
references/vulnerable-packages.md — Curated CVE watchlist for npm, pip, Maven, Rubygems, Cargo, and Go modules
- Search patterns: lodash, axios, jsonwebtoken, Pillow, log4j, nokogiri, CVE
references/report-format.md — Structured output template for security reports with finding cards, dependency audit, secrets scan, and patch proposal formatting
- Search patterns: report, format, template, finding, patch, summary, confidence