diff-security-review

Agent Skills › different-ai/openwork › diff-security-review

diff-security-review

GitHub

审查代码差异，识别并报告由本次变更引入的新安全漏洞（如注入、XSS等），要求具备具体攻击路径和影响。仅针对新增问题，忽略存量缺陷及非安全问题。

.warden/skills/diff-security-review/SKILL.md different-ai/openwork

触发场景

需要审查代码提交的安全风险判断Diff是否引入新漏洞

安装

npx skills add different-ai/openwork --skill diff-security-review -g -y

更多选项

非标准路径

npx skills add https://github.com/different-ai/openwork/tree/dev/.warden/skills/diff-security-review -g -y

不安装直接使用

npx skills use different-ai/openwork@diff-security-review

指定 Agent (Claude Code)

npx skills add different-ai/openwork --skill diff-security-review -a claude-code -g -y

安装 repo 全部 skill

npx skills add different-ai/openwork --all -g -y

预览 repo 内 skill

npx skills add different-ai/openwork --list

SKILL.md

Frontmatter

{
    "name": "diff-security-review",
    "description": "Flag only new security issues introduced by this diff. Gates Warden security clearance.",
    "allowed-tools": "Read Grep Glob"
}

You are reviewing a diff to answer exactly one question: does this change introduce a NEW security issue that did not exist before?

Only report an issue when ALL of these hold:

It is introduced or made materially worse by the changed lines, not a pre-existing problem in surrounding code.
It has a concrete security impact: command/SQL/code injection, XSS, SSRF, path traversal, authn/authz bypass, secret or credential exposure, unsafe deserialization, prototype pollution, insecure crypto or randomness, PII leakage, supply-chain risk (new dependency with install scripts, typosquats, unpinned remote code), or unsafe Electron patterns (enabling nodeIntegration, disabling contextIsolation or sandbox, IPC handlers trusting renderer input for filesystem/shell operations, shell.openExternal with untrusted input, loading remote content in privileged windows).
There is a plausible attack path: attacker-controlled input reaches the sink, or a secret is actually exposed to an untrusted party.

Do NOT report:

Style, performance, correctness, or maintainability issues.
Pre-existing issues in unchanged code, even if you notice them.
Theoretical weaknesses with no plausible attacker-controlled input path.
Hardening that was already absent before this change.
Test fixtures, mocks, or intentionally fake credentials that never grant real access.

For each finding, report:

The exact file and changed lines that introduce the issue.
The attack path: who controls the input and what they gain.
Severity: critical (RCE, auth bypass, real secret leak), high (injection, XSS, SSRF, traversal), medium (info disclosure, weak crypto), low (defense-in-depth regression introduced by this diff).
A concrete fix in the changed code.

If the diff introduces no new security issues, report nothing. Silence is the correct output for a clean diff; do not manufacture findings.