Security Review
SentryOfficialPublished by Sentry
- Skill
- Review and audit
- Security
- CC-BY-SA-4.0
- Medium risk
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
Download the skill as a ZIP:
https://mp-staging.autogineer.com/agent-skills/getsentry/security-review/downloadUnzip 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
| 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 |
| Django/DRF views, permission classes, object-level access | Use the django-access-review skill if available for access control; otherwise authorization.md |
| Frontend, templates | xss.md, csrf.md, modern-threats.md (DOM clobbering, prototype pollution) |
| 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 |
Object merging/cloning, __proto__, DOM id/name lookups, WebSocket handlers, LLM prompt construction | modern-threats.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 |
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 Type | Guide |
|---|---|
Dockerfile, .dockerignore | infrastructure/docker.md |
| GitHub Actions workflows | Use the gha-security-review skill if available; otherwise references/supply-chain.md |
| Other CI/CD pipelines, lockfiles, package manifests | references/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.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.jsAlways 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 injectionAlways 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 moduleOutput 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:456Question: [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 securityFiles
- ATTRIBUTION.mdAdded by AutoGineer902 B
- LICENSE884 B
- SKILL.md11.5 KiB
- SPEC.md8.8 KiB
- infrastructure/docker.md9.2 KiB
- languages/javascript.md9.8 KiB
- languages/python.md9.3 KiB
- references/api-security.md12.4 KiB
- references/authentication.md8.9 KiB
- references/authorization.md9.8 KiB
- references/business-logic.md12.4 KiB
- references/cryptography.md8.5 KiB
- references/csrf.md9.7 KiB
- references/data-protection.md9.3 KiB
- references/deserialization.md10.0 KiB
- references/error-handling.md11.4 KiB
- references/file-security.md12.1 KiB
- references/injection.md6.7 KiB
- references/logging.md11.7 KiB
- references/misconfiguration.md10.1 KiB
- references/modern-threats.md13.0 KiB
- references/ssrf.md10.5 KiB
- references/supply-chain.md8.9 KiB
- references/xss.md7.4 KiB
infrastructure/docker.md
Docker Security Reference
Overview
Container security involves the Dockerfile, image composition, runtime configuration, and orchestration. Misconfigurations can lead to container escapes, privilege escalation, or exposure of sensitive data.
Dockerfile Security
Running as Root
# VULNERABLE: Running as root (default)
FROM node:18
COPY . /app
CMD ["node", "app.js"] # Runs as root
# SAFE: Non-root user
FROM node:18
RUN groupadd -r appgroup && useradd -r -g appgroup appuser
WORKDIR /app
COPY --chown=appuser:appgroup . .
USER appuser
CMD ["node", "app.js"]
# SAFE: Using numeric UID (more portable)
USER 1000:1000Base Image Issues
# VULNERABLE: Using latest tag (unpredictable)
FROM node:latest
FROM ubuntu:latest
# VULNERABLE: Using untrusted/unverified base image
FROM randomuser/myimage
# SAFE: Pinned versions with digest
FROM node:18.19.0-alpine@sha256:abc123...
FROM python:3.11.7-slim-bookworm
# SAFE: Official images from verified publishers
FROM docker.io/library/node:18.19.0-alpineSensitive Data in Images
# VULNERABLE: Secrets in build args visible in history
ARG DB_PASSWORD
RUN echo $DB_PASSWORD > /config
# VULNERABLE: Copying secrets into image
COPY .env /app/.env
COPY secrets.json /app/
COPY id_rsa /root/.ssh/
# VULNERABLE: Secrets in environment variables
ENV API_KEY=sk-12345
ENV DB_PASSWORD=mysecret
# SAFE: Mount secrets at runtime
# docker run -v /secrets:/secrets:ro myimage
# Or use Docker secrets in Swarm/K8sBuild-Time Secrets
# SAFE: Multi-stage build to exclude secrets
FROM node:18 AS builder
# Use build-time secret (Docker BuildKit)
RUN --mount=type=secret,id=npm_token \
NPM_TOKEN=$(cat /run/secrets/npm_token) npm install
FROM node:18-alpine
COPY --from=builder /app/node_modules /app/node_modules
# Secret not in final image
# Build with: docker build --secret id=npm_token,src=.npmrc .Package Installation
# VULNERABLE: Not cleaning up package manager cache
RUN apt-get update && apt-get install -y curl wget
# Leaves cache, increases image size and attack surface
# VULNERABLE: Installing unnecessary packages
RUN apt-get install -y vim nano curl wget git ssh
# SAFE: Minimal installation with cleanup
RUN apt-get update && \
apt-get install -y --no-install-recommends curl && \
rm -rf /var/lib/apt/lists/*
# SAFE: Using minimal base images
FROM alpine:3.19
FROM gcr.io/distroless/nodejs18
FROM scratch # Empty base imageCOPY vs ADD
# VULNERABLE: ADD can auto-extract and fetch URLs
ADD https://example.com/file.tar.gz /app/ # Downloads from URL
ADD archive.tar.gz /app/ # Auto-extracts
# SAFE: COPY is more explicit
COPY archive.tar.gz /app/
RUN tar -xzf /app/archive.tar.gz && rm /app/archive.tar.gzExposed Ports
# CHECK: Are all exposed ports necessary?
EXPOSE 22 # FLAG: SSH in container usually unnecessary
EXPOSE 3306 # FLAG: Database port exposed
EXPOSE 80 443 8080 9090 5000 # CHECK: Multiple ports
# SAFE: Only expose what's needed
EXPOSE 8080Image Scanning
Vulnerability Patterns
# Scan for vulnerabilities
docker scan myimage
trivy image myimage
grype myimage
# Check for secrets in image
trufflehog docker --image myimage
# Or manually inspect layers
docker history --no-trunc myimageHigh-Risk Packages
# FLAG: Packages that increase attack surface
RUN apt-get install -y \
openssh-server \ # SSH access
sudo \ # Privilege escalation
netcat \ # Network tools
nmap \ # Network scanning
gcc make \ # Compilers (should be in build stage only)
python3-pip # Package managers (install deps, then remove)Runtime Security
Privileged Mode
# VULNERABLE: Running privileged (full host access)
docker run --privileged myimage
# VULNERABLE: Dangerous capabilities
docker run --cap-add=ALL myimage
docker run --cap-add=SYS_ADMIN myimage
docker run --cap-add=NET_ADMIN myimage
# SAFE: Drop all capabilities, add only needed
docker run --cap-drop=ALL --cap-add=NET_BIND_SERVICE myimage
# SAFE: Read-only root filesystem
docker run --read-only myimage
# SAFE: No new privileges
docker run --security-opt=no-new-privileges myimageVolume Mounts
# VULNERABLE: Mounting sensitive host paths
docker run -v /:/host myimage # Entire host filesystem
docker run -v /etc:/etc myimage # Host config files
docker run -v /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock # Docker socket
# VULNERABLE: Writable mounts of sensitive paths
docker run -v /etc/passwd:/etc/passwd myimage
# SAFE: Specific paths, read-only where possible
docker run -v /app/data:/data:ro myimage
docker run -v myvolume:/app/data myimage # Named volumeDocker Socket Access
# CRITICAL: Docker socket mount = root on host
docker run -v /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock myimage
# Container can create privileged containers, access host
# If required, use read-only and restrict with authz plugin
# Or use Docker API proxy with limited permissionsNetwork Security
# VULNERABLE: Host network mode
docker run --network=host myimage # No network isolation
# SAFE: User-defined networks with isolation
docker network create --internal internal-net # No external access
docker run --network=internal-net myimage
# SAFE: Restrict inter-container communication
docker network create --driver=bridge --opt com.docker.network.bridge.enable_icc=false isolatedResource Limits
# VULNERABLE: No resource limits (DoS risk)
docker run myimage
# SAFE: Set memory and CPU limits
docker run --memory=512m --cpus=1 myimage
# SAFE: Limit processes
docker run --pids-limit=100 myimageDocker Compose Security
Secrets Management
# VULNERABLE: Secrets in environment
services:
app:
environment:
- DB_PASSWORD=mysecret
- API_KEY=sk-12345
# SAFE: Use secrets
services:
app:
secrets:
- db_password
environment:
- DB_PASSWORD_FILE=/run/secrets/db_password
secrets:
db_password:
external: true # Or file: ./secrets/db_passwordPrivilege Restrictions
# SAFE: Security options in compose
services:
app:
image: myimage
user: "1000:1000"
read_only: true
security_opt:
- no-new-privileges:true
cap_drop:
- ALL
cap_add:
- NET_BIND_SERVICE
tmpfs:
- /tmp
deploy:
resources:
limits:
memory: 512M
cpus: '1'Network Isolation
# SAFE: Internal networks for backend services
services:
frontend:
networks:
- public
- internal
backend:
networks:
- internal # Not accessible from outside
database:
networks:
- internal
networks:
public:
internal:
internal: true # No external access.dockerignore
Required Exclusions
# SAFE: Exclude sensitive files
.env
.env.*
*.pem
*.key
id_rsa*
secrets/
credentials/
.git/
.gitignore
.dockerignore
Dockerfile
docker-compose*.yml
*.log
node_modules/
__pycache__/
.pytest_cache/
coverage/
.nyc_output/Missing .dockerignore
# FLAG: No .dockerignore may copy secrets into image
# Check if .env, keys, or credentials are copiedRegistry Security
Image Pull Policy
# VULNERABLE: Always pulling latest
image: myregistry/myimage:latest
# VULNERABLE: No digest verification
image: myregistry/myimage:1.0
# SAFE: Pinned with digest
image: myregistry/myimage@sha256:abc123...Private Registry Auth
# VULNERABLE: Credentials in plain text
docker login -u user -p password registry.example.com
# SAFE: Use credential helpers
# ~/.docker/config.json
{
"credHelpers": {
"gcr.io": "gcloud",
"*.dkr.ecr.*.amazonaws.com": "ecr-login"
}
}Grep Patterns for Dockerfiles
# Running as root
grep -rn "^USER" Dockerfile || echo "No USER directive - runs as root"
# Secrets in environment
grep -rn "^ENV.*PASSWORD\|^ENV.*SECRET\|^ENV.*KEY\|^ENV.*TOKEN" Dockerfile
# Secrets in build args
grep -rn "^ARG.*PASSWORD\|^ARG.*SECRET\|^ARG.*KEY" Dockerfile
# Latest tags
grep -rn "FROM.*:latest\|FROM.*@" Dockerfile | grep -v "@sha256"
# Privileged instructions
grep -rn "^ADD\|EXPOSE 22\|apt-get install.*ssh" Dockerfile
# Missing cleanup
grep -rn "apt-get install" Dockerfile | grep -v "rm -rf"Testing Checklist
[ ] Container runs as non-root user
[ ] Base image is pinned with digest
[ ] No secrets in image layers (ENV, ARG, COPY)
[ ] Multi-stage build for secrets/build tools
[ ] Minimal base image (alpine, distroless)
[ ] Package manager cache cleaned
[ ] .dockerignore excludes sensitive files
[ ] No --privileged or dangerous capabilities
[ ] No Docker socket mount
[ ] Resource limits configured
[ ] Network isolation configured
[ ] Image scanned for vulnerabilities
[ ] Read-only root filesystem where possible
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.
Download ZIP
The ZIP holds the skill’s files, its licence files and an ATTRIBUTION.md. Download security-review.zip