Performs a comprehensive security review of code changes in a GitHub PR or issue. Checks out the branch, analyzes changed files against a 9-category security checklist, and produces PASS/WARNING/FAIL verdicts. Use when reviewing pull requests for security vulnerabilities, hardcoded secrets, injection flaws, auth bypasses, or insecure configurations. Trigger keywords - security review, code review, appsec, vulnerability assessment, security audit, review PR security.
NVIDIA19,418 starsApr 8, 2026
Occupation
Categories
Code Quality
Skill Content
Perform a thorough security review of the changes in a GitHub PR or issue, producing a structured report with per-category verdicts.
Prerequisites
gh (GitHub CLI) must be installed and authenticated.
git must be available.
Network access to clone repositories and fetch PR metadata.
When to Use
Reviewing a pull request before merge for security vulnerabilities.
Triaging a GitHub issue that reports a potential security flaw.
Auditing code changes for hardcoded secrets, injection flaws, auth bypasses, or insecure configurations.
Step 1: Parse the GitHub URL
If the user provided a PR or issue URL, extract the owner, repo, and number. If not, ask for one.
Supported URL formats:
https://github.com/OWNER/REPO/pull/NUMBER
https://github.com/OWNER/REPO/issues/NUMBER
Step 2: Check Out the Code
Related Skills
Determine whether you are already in the target repository (compare gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q .nameWithOwner against the URL). If you are:
gh pr checkout <number>
If reviewing a different repo, clone it to a temporary directory first:
New dependencies (package.json, requirements.txt, go.mod changes).
Everything else.
Step 5: Analyze Against the Security Checklist
For each of the 9 categories below, assign a verdict:
PASS — no issues found (brief justification).
WARNING — potential concern (describe risk and suggested fix).
FAIL — confirmed vulnerability (describe impact, severity, and remediation).
Category 1: Secrets and Credentials
No hardcoded secrets, API keys, passwords, tokens, or connection strings in code, configs, or test fixtures.
No secrets committed to version control (check for .env files, PEM/key files, credential JSON).
Tokens and credentials passed via environment variables or secret stores, not string literals.
Category 2: Input Validation and Data Sanitization
All user-controlled inputs (APIs, forms, URLs, headers, query params, file uploads) are validated against an allowlist of expected types, lengths, and formats.
Proper encoding and escaping to prevent XSS, SQL injection, command injection, path traversal, and SSRF.
Deserialization of untrusted data uses safe parsers (no pickle.loads, yaml.unsafe_load, eval, new Function, or similar).
Category 3: Authentication and Authorization
All new or modified endpoints enforce authentication before processing requests.
Authorization logic ensures users can only access or modify resources they own or are permitted to use.
No privilege escalation paths (horizontal or vertical).
Token validation (expiry, signature, scope) is correctly implemented.
Category 4: Dependencies and Third-Party Libraries
Newly added dependencies checked for known CVEs (OSV, Snyk, GitHub Advisory DB).
Dependencies pinned to specific, secure versions (no floating ranges in production).
OSS license compatibility not violated.
Dependencies pulled from trusted registries only.
Category 5: Error Handling and Logging
Error responses do not leak stack traces, internal paths, or sensitive data.
Logging does not record secrets, tokens, passwords, or PII.
Exceptions caught at appropriate boundaries; no unhandled crashes that expose state.
Existing security test coverage not degraded by the change.
Negative test cases verify that forbidden actions are denied.
Category 9: Holistic Security Posture
Changes do not degrade overall security posture.
No false sense of security (client-only validation, incomplete checks).
Least privilege followed for code, services, and users.
No TOCTOU race conditions in security-critical paths.
No unsafe concurrency that bypasses security checks.
Step 6: Produce the Report
Structure the output as follows:
Verdict
One paragraph summarizing the overall risk assessment and whether the PR is safe to merge.
Findings Table
One row per finding:
#
Category
Severity
File:Line
Description
Recommendation
If no findings, state explicitly that the review is clean.
Detailed Analysis
Per-category breakdown (categories 1 through 9), each with its PASS, WARNING, or FAIL verdict and justification.
Files Reviewed
List every file analyzed.
Important Notes
If the PR has no changed files or is a draft with no code, state that and skip the analysis.
For NemoClaw PRs, pay special attention to sandbox escape vectors: SSRF bypasses, Dockerfile injection, network policy circumvention, credential leakage, and blueprint tampering.
Do not skip categories. If a category is not applicable to the changes (e.g., no cryptography involved), mark it PASS with "Not applicable — no cryptographic operations in this change."
When in doubt about severity, err on the side of WARNING rather than PASS.