Skills DirectorySkills Directory
SkillsLearnSecurityCategoriesDocsBlogPro
Sign InSubmit Skill
Skills Directory

Security-tested agent skills for Claude, coding agents, and AI workflows.

Directory

  • Browse Skills
  • All Skills A–Z
  • Claude Skills
  • Claude Code Skills
  • Agent Skills
  • Categories
  • Authors
  • Submit a Skill

Learn

  • Learn Hub
  • Install Claude Skills
  • Write SKILL.md
  • Skills vs MCP
  • Directories Compared

Security

  • Security
  • Methodology
  • Secure Claude Skills
  • Security Badges
  • Chrome Extension
  • Skill Manager

Company

  • About
  • Community
  • Blog
  • API Docs
  • Advertise

2026 Skills Directory. All rights reserved.

ProTermsPrivacyRefunds
Back to skills

Code Review Methodology

ASecurity

Systematic manual source-code security review — how to find bugs by reading code. Load on "review this code/repo", a source-available target, whitebox testing, or auditing a PR/app for vulnerabilities. Signals: a codebase in scope, "SAST", "secure code review", a language repo.

20 stars
0 votes
0 copies
0 views
Added 9/22/2026
securitygotestingcode-reviewgitapisecurity

Works with

api

Security Analysis

A100/100

Scanned 9/22/2026

$npx -y skills add NoorQureshi/SploitAgent --skill code-review-methodology --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Code Review Methodology?

Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Code Review Methodology
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/noorqureshi-code-review-methodology/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/noorqureshi-code-review-methodology)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
Files
SKILL.md
---
name: code-review-methodology
description: >
  Systematic manual source-code security review — how to find bugs by reading code. Load on
  "review this code/repo", a source-available target, whitebox testing, or auditing a PR/app
  for vulnerabilities. Signals: a codebase in scope, "SAST", "secure code review", a language repo.
domain: code-review
type: methodology
stability: learning
modes: [bugbounty, defense]
severity: info
tools: [semgrep, ripgrep, git]
schema_version: 1
---

# Source-code security review — methodology

## When it applies
You have (some of) the source. Whitebox review finds classes that blackbox misses — it follows
data from where it enters to where it's dangerous, across the whole codebase at once.

## Why it works
Vulnerabilities are source → sink flows with missing sanitization in between. Reading code lets
you see the sink (dangerous function), trace back to a user-controlled source, and confirm
nothing safe happens on the path — far faster and more complete than guessing from outside.

## Method
1. **Map the app**: entry points (routes/controllers/handlers), auth/authz middleware, the ORM/
   DB layer, config, and where user input enters. Note the framework — its defaults decide a lot.
2. **Sink-first sweep**: grep for dangerous functions per language (see `code-review-dangerous-sinks`)
   and for each hit, trace the argument back to a source. `semgrep --config auto` for a fast first pass.
3. **Source-to-sink for each class**: injection (query/exec/template), authz (missing owner
   checks → IDOR/BOLA), deserialization, SSRF (URL fetchers), file ops (path traversal/upload),
   crypto misuse, secrets in code.
4. **Auth & access control**: verify every sensitive route re-checks identity AND object ownership,
   not just "logged in". This is where the highest-impact bugs hide.
5. **Track findings** with `file:line`, the data path, and a PoC request; confirm dynamically where possible.

## Gotchas
- A dangerous sink with a constant/allowlisted argument isn't a bug — confirm the source is user-controlled.
- Framework auto-escaping (ORM params, template autoescape) can neutralize an apparent sink — check config.
- Don't drown in `semgrep` noise; triage by exploitable source→sink, not raw hit count.

## Verify success
For each finding: a concrete source→sink path with missing sanitization, ideally reproduced
with a request/input that triggers it.

## References
OWASP Code Review Guide; Semgrep rules; "Micro-methodology for code review" (GitHub Security Lab).

Attribution

NoorQureshiNoorQureshi
View sourceSee grades on GitHubMore from NoorQureshi →
SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Ship a skill? Prove it's safe.

Free 120-pattern security scan, letter grade, and an embeddable README badge.

Submit a skill

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!

SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Ship a skill? Prove it's safe.

Free 120-pattern security scan, letter grade, and an embeddable README badge.

Submit a skill

Related Skills

Security Review

Use this skill when adding authentication, handling user input, working with secrets, creating API endpoints, or implementing payment/sensitive features. Provides comprehensive security checklist and patterns.

2456590 votes

Springboot Security

Java Spring Boot 服务中关于身份验证/授权、验证、CSRF、密钥、标头、速率限制和依赖安全的 Spring Security 最佳实践。

2456590 votes

Paperclip Evals

Choose, inspect, validate, and report Paperclip Runner or Product E2E evaluations while preserving evidence, provenance, cost, and failure classification.

953190 votes

Paperclip Task Bridge

Create, comment on, update, and list Paperclip tasks from Hermes using scoped Paperclip API credentials.

953190 votes

Summarize Status

Write a short, colloquial summary for a Paperclip summary slot: open with the 1–3 specific, concrete actions the reader needs to take right now to unblock the work, then a brief plain-language status, streaming progress as it works.

953190 votes
View all in security →