Generated banner for Security Review
Generated logo for Security Review

Security Review

SentryOfficialPublished by Sentry

  • Skill
  • Review and audit
  • Security
  • CC-BY-SA-4.0
  • Medium risk

From the author

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.
— the description by Sentry

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

  1. Download the skill as a ZIP:

    https://mp-staging.autogineer.com/agent-skills/getsentry/security-review/download
  2. Unzip 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

LevelCriteriaAction
HIGHVulnerable pattern + attacker-controlled input confirmedReport with severity
MEDIUMVulnerable pattern, input source unclearNote as "Needs verification"
LOWTheoretical, best practice, defense-in-depthDo 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:

SourceExampleWhy It's Safe
Django settingssettings.API_URL, settings.ALLOWED_HOSTSSet via config/env at deployment
Environment variablesos.environ.get('DATABASE_URL')Deployment configuration
Config filesconfig.yaml, app.config['KEY']Server-side files
Framework constantsdjango.conf.settings.*Not user-modifiable
Hardcoded valuesBASE_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:

PatternWhy 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 TypeLoad These References
API endpoints, routesauthorization.md, authentication.md, injection.md
Django/DRF views, permission classes, object-level accessUse the django-access-review skill if available for access control; otherwise authorization.md
Frontend, templatesxss.md, csrf.md, modern-threats.md (DOM clobbering, prototype pollution)
File handling, uploadsfile-security.md
Crypto, secrets, tokenscryptography.md, data-protection.md
Data serializationdeserialization.md
External requestsssrf.md
Business workflowsbusiness-logic.md
GraphQL, REST designapi-security.md
Config, headers, CORSmisconfiguration.md
CI/CD, dependenciessupply-chain.md
Error handlingerror-handling.md
Audit, logginglogging.md
Object merging/cloning, __proto__, DOM id/name lookups, WebSocket handlers, LLM prompt constructionmodern-threats.md
2. Load Language Guide

Based on file extension or imports:

IndicatorsGuide
.py, django, flask, fastapilanguages/python.md
.js, .ts, express, react, vue, nextlanguages/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 TypeGuide
Dockerfile, .dockerignoreinfrastructure/docker.md
GitHub Actions workflowsUse the gha-security-review skill if available; otherwise references/supply-chain.md
Other CI/CD pipelines, lockfiles, package manifestsreferences/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.argssettings.X, app.config['X']
request.json, request.data, request.bodyos.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 usersFramework 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

SeverityImpactExamples
CriticalDirect exploit, severe impact, no auth requiredRCE, SQL injection to data, auth bypass, hardcoded secrets
HighExploitable with conditions, significant impactStored XSS, SSRF to metadata, IDOR to sensitive data
MediumSpecific conditions required, moderate impactReflected XSS, CSRF on state-changing actions, path traversal
LowDefense-in-depth, minimal direct impactMissing 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

### Infrastructure (`infrastructure/`)
- `docker.md` - Container security

Files

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 1000:1000
Base 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-alpine
Sensitive 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/K8s
Build-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 image
COPY 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.gz
Exposed 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 8080

Image 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 myimage
High-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 myimage
Volume 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 volume
Docker 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 permissions
Network 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 isolated
Resource 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 myimage

Docker 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_password
Privilege 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 copied

Registry 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