Security Review
SkillSecurityReview authorized application code, configuration, designs or artifacts for concrete authorization, data exposure, injection, secret, dependency and LLM/tool security risks. Use for a requested security review or a change affecting a trust boundary.
Then ask your AI: use the Security Review skill
Details
Instructions available. Your AI can read the instructions. Execution depends on the setup they require.
Account requirements not reviewed. Check the skill instructions before use; Ahel provides instructions and does not run this skill.
No other account needed.
Add it as a step in a pipeline you build on Ahel, or connect Ahel to Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Claude Code or Codex and ask your AI to use it.
What this skill tells your AI
The instructions your AI receives, as published by sgaabdu4/building-flutter-apps in .agents/skills/security-review/SKILL.md and read by Ahel’s review.
Load the review method; use Research when dependency/advisory claims need current evidence. Reuse existing fix/testing authority; review alone adds no remediation or live-exploitation authority.
flowchart LR
R[Code Review method] -->|Current dependency / advisory evidence| D[Research]
click R "../code-review/references/review.md"
click D "../research/SKILL.md"
- Trace = sensitive asset + caller/input + required permission → actual enforcing owner → operation/data. UI visibility or a caller's check does not prove server authorization.
- Coverage = focused change → affected path + adjacent callers; broad review → actual entry points + assets, then relevant surfaces below. Mark material missing evidence.
| Surface | Resolve |
|---|---|
| Identity / sessions | Caller-selected identity, role or tenant; login, recovery, expiry + revocation boundaries. |
| Data / privilege | Actor + tenant enforcement for object, field, list/export + mutation; alternate entry points. |
| Input / files | Query, markup, URL, path, upload/archive → normalization + downstream parser, fetch, storage or execution. |
| Secrets / artifacts | Source, logs, client bundle, generated config + packaged output exposure; inspect the actual in-scope artifact. Internal address alone ≠ secret. |
| LLM / tools | Untrusted content influencing privileged actions; permissions + validated arguments outside the model; required approval at the action boundary. |
| Dependencies | Resolved lockfile/image/SBOM/runtime version + existing scan + primary advisory ranges. Trace production/build/dev/transitive use; manifest range ≠ resolved version. Confirmed vulnerable version ≠ proven exploitability; unknown reachability never waives a required gate. |
- Finding = entry point + actor/input preconditions + enforcing/missing control + affected asset + realistic impact. Test competing explanations through source + permitted probes; unproven exploit path stays unknown.
- Secret evidence = type + location + exposure path; mask values. Keep findings, optional hardening + unresolved questions distinct.
- Authorized fix = smallest control satisfying the requirement; verify original unauthorized path denied + legitimate access preserved at the actual permission/input boundary. Run applicable gates.
- Result = assessed surfaces + findings + gaps. Scanner success proves only its checked scope; no whole-application certification or implied runtime proof.
Signals
- GitHub stars
- 23
- Forks
- 4
- Last commit
- Oct 2026
- Hacker News mentions
- 1
Advanced
- Item type
- skill
- Key
security-review-sgaabdu4- Source
- github.com/sgaabdu4/building-flutter-apps
github.com/sgaabdu4/building-flutter-apps
Related picks
Skill · stbenjam
The pick for Dependenciesauditing-python-dependencies
Skill · jeremylongshore
The pick for Dependenciessecrets-exposure-review
Skill · naodeng
The pick for Secretssecrets-with-git-crypt
Skill · derailed-dash
The pick for Secretstesting-api-security-with-owasp-top-10
Skill · mukul975
The pick for Web (OWASP)checking-owasp-compliance
Skill · jeremylongshore
The pick for Web (OWASP)