Skip to content
Agentmart
Submit a tool

secure-code-review

Systematically reviews code for SQL injection, XSS, SSRF, broken access control, cryptographic failures, and other common OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities…

Skill by zebbern

IndexedMIT★ 4,678
Write a review

Install

Works with Claude Code, Claude apps, Codex, Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot, VS Code, OpenCode, Goose, Windsurf. Read the repository before you give any tool access to your data.

npx agentmarket install skill/zebbern-secure-code-review

Asks which of your tools to add it to (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, VS Code, Windsurf, Gemini CLI, Claude Desktop) and shows the change first. See https://agentmart.dev/cli.

Get the weekly diff

The weekly diff: one email a week with new agent tools, notable updates and grade changes, plus security alerts for tools you follow. Double opt-in, one-click unsubscribe.

We use your email only for this newsletter. Privacy

About

Systematically reviews code for SQL injection, XSS, SSRF, broken access control, cryptographic failures, and other common OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities, providing vulnerable code examples and ready-to-use remediation guidance. Trigger this skill when users ask for a security review, vulnerability scan, or penetration testing assistance, or mention keywords like OWASP, SQL injection, XSS, code audit, or security checklist.

Use cases: backend, testing, security

No reviews yet. Installed it? Reviews come from verified installers only. How reviews work

Permissions

What this skill can do and what it asks for, from its SKILL.md and code. Checked Oct 25, 2026.

Tools
No tools found
Secrets
None asked for
Install scripts
None found

Network hosts it talks to 1

  • codeload.github.com · found in install command

Files it touches

  • ~/.claude/skills/secure-code-review

What's inside

Skill name
secure-code-review
Description
Systematically reviews code for SQL injection, XSS, SSRF, broken access control, cryptographic failures, and other common OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities, providing vulnerable code examples and ready-to-use remediation guidance. Trigger this skill when users ask for a security review, vulnerability scan, or penetration testing assistance, or mention keywords like OWASP, SQL injection, XSS, code audit, or security checklist.
License
MIT
Instructions
567 lines in SKILL.md · view on GitHub

Before installing

  • Instructions call the network

Agent Skills spec issues

  • body: 567 lines (spec recommends under 500)

Files (2)

  • LICENSE
  • SKILL.md

SKILL.md (first lines)

# OWASP Top 10 Code Security Review Checklist

A systematic security review based on the OWASP Top 10 (2021) standard. Each item includes: vulnerability description, typical vulnerable code, inspection checkpoints, and remediation examples. Designed for security-focused code review of web applications.

## Usage

Provide the code files or code snippets to review, and specify which OWASP categories to check (or request a full review) to receive an item-by-item audit report.

**Example prompts:**
- "Check this code for SQL injection risks"
- "Run a full OWASP Top 10 security review on this project"
- "Does this API endpoint have any SSRF vulnerabilities?"

---

## Quick Reference

| ID | Category | Key Check |
|----|----------|-----------|
| A01 | Broken Access Control | Does every endpoint verify the current user's identity? Can users access others' data by changing IDs? |
| A02 | Cryptographic Failures | Are passwords hashed with bcrypt/argon2? Are secrets hardcoded? |
| A03 | Injection | String-concatenated SQL? `shell=True`? Unescaped template output? |
| A04 | Insecure Design | Is rate limiting in place? Can critical workflows be bypassed? |
| A05 | Security Misconfiguration | DEBUG enabled? Stack traces in error pages? Default credentials? |
| A06 | Vulnerable Components | Any CVEs from `pip audit` / `npm audit`? |
| A07 | Authentication Failures | Is JWT signature verified? Can tokens be revoked? Is MFA available? |
| A08 | Integrity Failures | Any `pickle.loads` deserializing untrusted data? |
| A09 | Logging & Monitoring Failures | Are plaintext passwords in logs? Are failed logins recorded? |
| A10 | SSRF | Are user-supplied URLs filtered against internal IPs? |

---

## Review Process SOP

**Core principle: prefer false positives over missed true positives.**

1. **Define scope** — Identify the files, modules, or code snippets to review
2. **Full coverage check** — Scan through A01-A10 sequentially. **Every item must appear in the report** (mark items with no findings as pass). The default behavior is to only report issues found — this process requires full coverage to ensure nothing is missed
3. **Risk classification** — Label each finding:
   - RED High: Directly exploitable (RCE, SQL injection, SSRF reaching internal networks, plaintext password storage)
   - YELLOW Medium: Exploitable under specific conditions (missing rate limiting, weak password policy, static tokens)
   - GREEN Low: Defense-in-depth gap with no direct exploitation path (missing security headers, insufficient logging)
4. **Every finding must include ready-to-use fix code** (actual code, not just a description). Reference specific `file:line_number`
5. **Output the review report** — Use the template below, findings sorted by severity descending, with a prioritized remediation list at the end

---

## A01:2021 — Broken Access Control

**Risk:** Users can access other users' data or perform unauthorized operations.

**Checkpoints:**
- [ ] Does every API endpoint enforce authorization?
- [ ] Are there IDOR vulnerabilities (Insecure Direct Object References) — can users access others' data by modifying ID parameters?
- [ ] Do admin interfaces verify roles?
- [ ] Is access control enforced server-side (not just by hiding UI elements)?
- [ ] Is the CORS policy overly permissive?

### Vulnerable Code Example

```python
# ❌ Vulnerable: No authorization check — any user can view others' orders by changing user_id
@app.route("/api/orders/<user_id>")
def get_orders(user_id):
    orders = db.query(f"SELECT * FROM orders WHERE user_id = {user_id}")
    return jsonify(orders)
```

### Remediation Example

```python
# ✅ Fixed: Verify the authenticated user can only access their own data
@app.route("/api/orders")
@login_required
def get_orders():
    current_user_id = get_current_user().id
    orders = db.query("SELECT * FROM orders WHERE user_id = %s", (current_user_id,))
    return jsonify(orders)
```

---

## A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures

**Risk:** Sensitive data (passwords, credit card numbers, personal information) is unencrypted or uses weak cryptographic algorithms.

**Checkpoints:**
- [ ] Are passwords stored using secure hashing (bcrypt/scrypt/argon2) rather than MD5/SHA1?
- [ ] Is HTTPS enforced for sensitive data in transit?
- [ ] Are encryption keys hardcoded in the source code?
- [ ] Are deprecated cryptographic algorithms in use (DES, RC4, MD5)?
- [ ] Are sensitive database fields encrypted at rest?

### Vulnerable Code Example

```python
# ❌ Vulnerable: MD5 for password storage, hardcoded secret key
import hashlib

SECRET_KEY = "my-secret-key-123"

def save_password(password):
    hashed = hashlib.md5(password.encode()).hexdigest()
    db.save(hashed)
```

### Remediation Example

```python
# ✅ Fixed: bcrypt for password hashing, secret key from environment variable
import bcrypt
import os

SECRET_KEY = os.environ["SECRET_KEY"]

def save_password(password):
    salt = bcrypt.gensalt()
    hashed = bcrypt.hashpw(password.encode(), salt)
    db.save(hashed)

From zebbern/claude-code-guide, MIT.

More from zebbern/claude-code-guide

Signals

Stars
4,678
Forks
471
Open issues
3
Last commit (this folder)
May 31, 2026 (5 months ago)

From GitHub (fetched Oct 24, 2026).

Details

License
MIT
First seen
Oct 24, 2026
Last checked
Oct 24, 2026

More from zebbern

Cite this page

secure-code-review skill. Agent Mart. https://agentmart.dev/skills/zebbern-secure-code-review (last updated 2026-10-24)