Differential Security Review

Overview

This public intake copy packages

plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/differential-review

https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses

metadata.json

ORIGIN.md

Differential Security Review Security-focused code review for PRs, commits, and diffs.

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Rationalizations (Do Not Skip), Decision Tree, Quality Checklist, Integration, Red Flags (Stop and Investigate), Tips for Best Results.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

• You need a security-focused review of a PR, commit range, or diff rather than a general code review.
• The changes touch auth, crypto, external calls, value transfer, permissions, or other high-risk logic.
• You need findings backed by code evidence, attack scenarios, and an explicit report artifact.
• Greenfield code (no baseline to compare)
• Documentation-only changes (no security impact)
• Formatting/linting (cosmetic changes)

Operating Table

metadata.json

ORIGIN.md

SKILL.md

SKILL.md

## Related Skills

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. Pre-Analysis → Phase 0: Triage → Phase 1: Code Analysis → Phase 2: Test Coverage ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Phase 3: Blast Radius → Phase 4: Deep Context → Phase 5: Adversarial → Phase 6: Report ---
2. Confirm the user goal, the scope of the imported workflow, and whether this skill is still the right router for the task.
3. Read the overview and provenance files before loading any copied upstream support files.
4. Load only the references, examples, prompts, or scripts that materially change the outcome for the current request.
5. Execute the upstream workflow while keeping provenance and source boundaries explicit in the working notes.
6. Validate the result against the upstream expectations and the evidence you can point to in the copied files.
7. Escalate or hand off to a related skill when the work moves out of this imported workflow's center of gravity.

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: Workflow Overview

Pre-Analysis → Phase 0: Triage → Phase 1: Code Analysis → Phase 2: Test Coverage
    ↓              ↓                    ↓                        ↓
Phase 3: Blast Radius → Phase 4: Deep Context → Phase 5: Adversarial → Phase 6: Report

Imported: Rationalizations (Do Not Skip)

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @differential-review to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @differential-review against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @differential-review for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @differential-review using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Imported Usage Notes

Imported: Example Usage

Quick Triage (Small PR)

Input: 5 file PR, 2 HIGH RISK files
Strategy: Use Quick Reference
1. Classify risk level per file (2 HIGH, 3 LOW)
2. Focus on 2 HIGH files only
3. Git blame removed code
4. Generate minimal report
Time: ~30 minutes

Standard Review (Medium Codebase)

Input: 80 files, 12 HIGH RISK changes
Strategy: FOCUSED (see methodology.md)
1. Full workflow on HIGH RISK files
2. Surface scan on MEDIUM
3. Skip LOW risk files
4. Complete report with all sections
Time: ~3-4 hours

Deep Audit (Large, Critical Change)

Input: 450 files, auth system rewrite
Strategy: SURGICAL + audit-context-building
1. Baseline context with audit-context-building
2. Deep analysis on auth changes only
3. Blast radius analysis
4. Adversarial modeling
5. Comprehensive report
Time: ~6-8 hours

Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

• Risk-First: Focus on auth, crypto, value transfer, external calls
• Evidence-Based: Every finding backed by git history, line numbers, attack scenarios
• Adaptive: Scale to codebase size (SMALL/MEDIUM/LARGE)
• Honest: Explicitly state coverage limits and confidence level
• Output-Driven: Always generate comprehensive markdown report file
• Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
• Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.

Imported Operating Notes

Imported: Core Principles

1. Risk-First: Focus on auth, crypto, value transfer, external calls
2. Evidence-Based: Every finding backed by git history, line numbers, attack scenarios
3. Adaptive: Scale to codebase size (SMALL/MEDIUM/LARGE)
4. Honest: Explicitly state coverage limits and confidence level
5. Output-Driven: Always generate comprehensive markdown report file

Troubleshooting

Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in

plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/differential-review

metadata.json

ORIGIN.md

Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated

SKILL.md

Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.

Related Skills

• @devops-deploy

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

• @devops-troubleshooter

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

• @discord-automation

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

• @discord-bot-architect

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

references

references/n/a

examples

examples/n/a

scripts

scripts/n/a

agents

agents/n/a

assets

assets/n/a

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: Quick Reference

Codebase Size Strategy

Risk Level Triggers

Imported: Decision Tree

Starting a review?

├─ Need detailed phase-by-phase methodology?
│  └─ Read: methodology.md
│     (Pre-Analysis + Phases 0-4: triage, code analysis, test coverage, blast radius)
│
├─ Analyzing HIGH RISK change?
│  └─ Read: adversarial.md
│     (Phase 5: Attacker modeling, exploit scenarios, exploitability rating)
│
├─ Writing the final report?
│  └─ Read: reporting.md
│     (Phase 6: Report structure, templates, formatting guidelines)
│
├─ Looking for specific vulnerability patterns?
│  └─ Read: patterns.md
│     (Regressions, reentrancy, access control, overflow, etc.)
│
└─ Quick triage only?
   └─ Use Quick Reference above, skip detailed docs

Imported: Quality Checklist

Before delivering:

• All changed files analyzed
• Git blame on removed security code
• Blast radius calculated for HIGH risk
• Attack scenarios are concrete (not generic)
• Findings reference specific line numbers + commits
• Report file generated
• User notified with summary

Imported: Integration

audit-context-building skill:

• Pre-Analysis: Build baseline context
• Phase 4: Deep context on HIGH RISK changes

issue-writer skill:

• Transform findings into formal audit reports
• Command:

  issue-writer --input DIFFERENTIAL_REVIEW_REPORT.md --format audit-report

Imported: Red Flags (Stop and Investigate)

Immediate escalation triggers:

• Removed code from "security", "CVE", or "fix" commits
• Access control modifiers removed (onlyOwner, internal → external)
• Validation removed without replacement
• External calls added without checks
• High blast radius (50+ callers) + HIGH risk change

These patterns require adversarial analysis even in quick triage.

Imported: Tips for Best Results

Do:

• Start with git blame for removed code
• Calculate blast radius early to prioritize
• Generate concrete attack scenarios
• Reference specific line numbers and commits
• Be honest about coverage limitations
• Always generate the output file

Don't:

• Skip git history analysis
• Make generic findings without evidence
• Claim full analysis when time-limited
• Forget to check test coverage
• Miss high blast radius changes
• Output report only to chat (file required)

Imported: Supporting Documentation

• methodology.md - Detailed phase-by-phase workflow (Phases 0-4)
• adversarial.md - Attacker modeling and exploit scenarios (Phase 5)
• reporting.md - Report structure and formatting (Phase 6)
• patterns.md - Common vulnerability patterns reference

For first-time users: Start with methodology.md to understand the complete workflow.

For experienced users: Use this page's Quick Reference and Decision Tree to navigate directly to needed content.

Imported: Limitations

• Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.