---
name: code-change-security-review
description: Performs security-focused differential review of code changes. Adapts analysis depth to codebase size, uses git blame for context, calculates blast radius by counting callers, checks test coverage of modified code, and generates a markdown report. Use when reviewing a PR, commit, or diff for security vulnerabilities, checking whether a change re-introduces a previously fixed bug, asking what else a change could break, or finding which modified code has no test covering it.
allowed-tools: Read Write Grep Glob Bash
license: CC-BY-SA-4.0
metadata:
author: Omar Inuwa; published by Trail of Bits
source: trailofbits/skills/plugins/differential-review/skills/differential-review
source_url: https://github.com/trailofbits/skills/blob/32e34f8173796e3566a51aee877dc96bc5191f64/plugins/differential-review/skills/differential-review/SKILL.md
upstream-commit: 32e34f8173796e3566a51aee877dc96bc5191f64
original-name: differential-review
packaged-by: AutoGPT
packaged-on: '2026-09-25'
---
> Packaging adaptation by AutoGPT, 2026-09-25. Original authorship and licence are retained. Changes are limited to the recorded name, metadata and file references; see ATTRIBUTION.md in this skill package.
# Differential Security Review
Security-focused code review for PRs, commits, and diffs.
## 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
---
## Rationalizations (Do Not Skip)
| Rationalization | Why It's Wrong | Required Action |
|-----------------|----------------|-----------------|
| "Small PR, quick review" | Heartbleed was 2 lines | Classify by RISK, not size |
| "I know this codebase" | Familiarity breeds blind spots | Build explicit baseline context |
| "Git history takes too long" | History reveals regressions | Never skip Phase 1 |
| "Blast radius is obvious" | You'll miss transitive callers | Calculate quantitatively |
| "No tests = not my problem" | Missing tests = elevated risk rating | Flag in report, elevate severity |
| "Just a refactor, no security impact" | Refactors break invariants | Analyze as HIGH until proven LOW |
| "I'll explain verbally" | No artifact = findings lost | Always write report |
---
## Quick Reference
### Codebase Size Strategy
| Codebase Size | Strategy | Approach |
|---------------|----------|----------|
| SMALL (<20 files) | DEEP | Read all deps, full git blame |
| MEDIUM (20-200) | FOCUSED | 1-hop deps, priority files |
| LARGE (200+) | SURGICAL | Critical paths only |
### Risk Level Triggers
| Risk Level | Triggers |
|------------|----------|
| HIGH | Auth, crypto, external calls, value transfer, validation removal |
| MEDIUM | Business logic, state changes, new public APIs |
| LOW | Comments, tests, UI, logging |
---
## 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
```
---
## 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)
│ └─ Or delegate to: differential-review:adversarial-modeler agent
│ (Autonomous attacker modeling with concrete exploit scenarios)
│
├─ 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
```
---
## Agents
**`differential-review:adversarial-modeler`** — Models attacker perspectives and
builds exploit scenarios for HIGH RISK code changes. Follows the 5-step
adversarial methodology (attacker model, attack vectors, exploitability rating,
exploit scenario, baseline cross-reference) and produces structured vulnerability
reports. Delegate to this agent when Phase 5 analysis is needed on high-risk
changes, passing that full namespaced name as `subagent_type` — a bare
`adversarial-modeler` is unregistered and the dispatch fails at runtime.
---
## 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
---
## 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`
---
## 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
```
---
## When NOT to Use This Skill
- **Greenfield code** (no baseline to compare)
- **Documentation-only changes** (no security impact)
- **Formatting/linting** (cosmetic changes)
- **User explicitly requests quick summary only** (they accept risk)
For these cases, use standard code review instead.
---
## 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.
---
## 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)
---
## Supporting Documentation
- **[methodology.md](methodology.md)** - Detailed phase-by-phase workflow (Phases 0-4)
- **[adversarial.md](adversarial.md)** - Attacker modeling and exploit scenarios (Phase 5)
- **[reporting.md](reporting.md)** - Report structure and formatting (Phase 6)
- **[patterns.md](patterns.md)** - Common vulnerability patterns reference
---
**For first-time users:** Start with [methodology.md](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.