Agent skill
security-review
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.
Install this agent skill to your Project
npx add-skill https://github.com/getsentry/skills/tree/main/plugins/sentry-skills/skills/security-review
SKILL.md
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 |
| Frontend, templates | xss.md, csrf.md |
| 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 |
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 |
.go, go.mod |
languages/go.md |
.rs, Cargo.toml |
languages/rust.md |
.java, spring, @Controller |
languages/java.md |
3. Load Infrastructure Guide (if applicable)
| File Type | Guide |
|---|---|
Dockerfile, .dockerignore |
infrastructure/docker.md |
| K8s manifests, Helm charts | infrastructure/kubernetes.md |
.tf, Terraform |
infrastructure/terraform.md |
GitHub Actions, .gitlab-ci.yml |
infrastructure/ci-cd.md |
| AWS/GCP/Azure configs, IAM | infrastructure/cloud.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.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
- `go.md` - Go-specific security patterns
- `rust.md` - Rust unsafe blocks, FFI security
- `java.md` - Spring, Java EE patterns
### Infrastructure (`infrastructure/`)
- `docker.md` - Container security
- `kubernetes.md` - K8s RBAC, secrets, policies
- `terraform.md` - IaC security
- `ci-cd.md` - Pipeline security
- `cloud.md` - AWS/GCP/Azure security
Recommended Agent Skills
Expand your agent's capabilities with these related and highly-rated skills.
doc-coauthoring
Guide users through a structured workflow for co-authoring documentation. Use when user wants to write documentation, proposals, technical specs, decision docs, or similar structured content. This workflow helps users efficiently transfer context, refine content through iteration, and verify the doc works for readers. Trigger when user mentions writing docs, creating proposals, drafting specs, or similar documentation tasks.
gha-security-review
GitHub Actions security review for workflow exploitation vulnerabilities. Use when asked to "review GitHub Actions", "audit workflows", "check CI security", "GHA security", "workflow security review", or review .github/workflows/ for pwn requests, expression injection, credential theft, and supply chain attacks. Exploitation-focused with concrete PoC scenarios.
commit
ALWAYS use this skill when committing code changes — never commit directly without it. Creates commits following Sentry conventions with proper conventional commit format and issue references. Trigger on any commit, git commit, save changes, or commit message task.
blog-writing-guide
Write, review, and improve blog posts for the Sentry engineering blog following Sentry's specific writing standards, voice, and quality bar. Use this skill whenever someone asks to write a blog post, draft a technical article, review blog content, improve a draft, write a product announcement, create an engineering deep-dive, or produce any written content destined for the Sentry blog or developer audience. Also trigger when the user mentions "blog post," "blog draft," "write-up," "announcement post," "engineering post," "deep dive," "postmortem," or asks for help with technical writing for Sentry. Even if the user just says "help me write about [feature/topic]" — if it sounds like it could become a Sentry blog post, use this skill.
pr-writer
ALWAYS use this skill when creating or updating pull requests — never create or edit a PR directly without it. Follows Sentry conventions for PR titles, descriptions, and issue references. Trigger on any create PR, open PR, submit PR, make PR, update PR title, update PR description, edit PR, push and create PR, prepare changes for review task, or request for a PR writer.
claude-settings-audit
Analyze a repository to generate recommended Claude Code settings.json permissions. Use when setting up a new project, auditing existing settings, or determining which read-only bash commands to allow. Detects tech stack, build tools, and monorepo structure.
Didn't find tool you were looking for?