Security Review (affaan-m) vs Security Review (waybarrios)
Two different Claude skills are both called Security Review. Security Review (affaan-m) and Security Review (waybarrios) install under the same name and do different jobs, which is exactly how the wrong one ends up running.
Security Review
affaan-m/ecc
Helps developers implement secure features by listing concrete checks and recommended patterns for authentication, input handling, secret management, API endpoints, and payment or sensitive flows. Unlike similarly named tools that scan code or produce vulnerability audits, this one focuses on design-time guidance and implementation checklists — it does not run automated SAST, assign severity scores, or perform penetration-style audits of diffs.
1 scenario in the bank answer to it
Security Review
waybarrios/opencode-power-pack
Inspects the unmerged commits on a branch and calls out concrete security problems that show realistic exploitation paths, so reviewers can decide whether changes are safe to merge. Unlike broader security-audit or SAST-style tools, it intentionally skips stylistic, architecture, dependency-wide, or general code-review concerns and concentrates only on high-confidence, actionable vulnerabilities in the pending diff.
2 scenarios in the bank answer to it
What is the difference between Security Review (affaan-m) and Security Review (waybarrios)?
- Security Review (affaan-m)
- Helps developers implement secure features by listing concrete checks and recommended patterns for authentication, input handling, secret management, API endpoints, and payment or sensitive flows. Unlike similarly named tools that scan code or produce vulnerability audits, this one focuses on design-time guidance and implementation checklists — it does not run automated SAST, assign severity scores, or perform penetration-style audits of diffs.
- Security Review (waybarrios)
- Inspects the unmerged commits on a branch and calls out concrete security problems that show realistic exploitation paths, so reviewers can decide whether changes are safe to merge. Unlike broader security-audit or SAST-style tools, it intentionally skips stylistic, architecture, dependency-wide, or general code-review concerns and concentrates only on high-confidence, actionable vulnerabilities in the pending diff.
Should I use Security Review (affaan-m) or Security Review (waybarrios)?
The clearest answer is a situation each one is unambiguously right for. Both of these are drawn from the game's question bank.
Reach for Security Review (affaan-m) when
I'm about to design a new login + payment flow and want a clear, practical list of secure patterns, do/avoid rules, and concrete checks I should follow as I build the feature so we don't bake in mistakes. I don't want someone to comb the whole repo for every weakness, produce a full cross-system compliance report, or only review a single outstanding change.
Winner: security-review-affaan-m gives the practical, design-time guidance this person needs — concrete patterns and checks for authentication, input handling, secret management, endpoints and sensitive flows to follow while writing the feature. What it does that the others do not is focus on implementation guidance up front rather than producing vulnerability scan results, a prioritized compliance audit, or a narrow review of a pending change. Most tempting wrong answer: security-review-getsentry — it finds and labels code-level problems, so it looks useful, but its output is about surfacing and scoring findings from existing source code rather than giving the developer a checklist of patterns and design-time rules to follow. (Other traps: security-reviewer-jeffallan would overdeliver a prioritized, compliance-style audit across code, infra and deps — useful but the wrong scope and heavier than needed; security-review-waybarrios only examines the specific unmerged change and focuses on high-confidence exploit paths, so it won't provide the broad, feature-level implementation guidance the author wants.)
Reach for Security Review (waybarrios) when
There is a pull request waiting and the release is in an hour. I do not want a report about the whole repo — just tell me whether anything in THESE changes is actually exploitable.
All four are security reviewers, so the question is scope. waybarrios reads only the unmerged commits on the branch and reports concrete exploitation paths, which is precisely a pre-merge decision. Sentry's scans project source and jeffallan produces a prioritised whole-system audit — both answer a bigger question than the one asked, and both cost more than an hour. affaan-m is design-time guidance for code you have not written yet, which is the wrong direction entirely once the PR exists.
What they have in common
Both are filed under Security, the axis along which they collide. That shared ground is what makes an agent pick between them on description alone — and what makes it pick wrong.
Nearby comparisons
- Security Review (affaan-m) vs Security Review (Sentry)
- Dependency Updater vs Security Review (affaan-m)
- Secure Error Handling vs Security Review (affaan-m)
- Security Review (affaan-m) vs Security Reviewer
- Security Review (affaan-m) vs Semgrep Rule Creator
- Security Review (affaan-m) vs What Leaked About You
Reading the difference is not the same as spotting it at speed. That is the game.
Today's session