Build-Verification Gates Pattern vs One-Shot Security Sweep Prompt
Both in the audit & qa category. Side-by-side — pick the one that fits your stack tonight.
Three gates that catch broken code before your agent commits it. No gate, no commit.
- rating
- 4★
- tested
- ✓ loya-tested
- cost
- free
- install
- drop-in
- stars
- 0
- updated
- 5d ago
You're writing code by hand and reviewing every diff yourself. Manual review is still a better gate.
One prompt that catches exposed API keys, SQL injection, XSS, and auth holes before you ship.
- rating
- 4★
- tested
- —
- cost
- free
- install
- drop-in
- stars
- 0
- updated
- 4d ago
You need a full enterprise security audit — for that, hire a real pen-tester. This is the 'before I push to prod' quick-check.
why it matters · Build-Verification Gates Pattern
When Claude writes code on its own, the real risk isn't bad code. It's bad code that gets committed without anyone noticing. Three cheap gates fix that: 1) typecheck passes, 2) build passes, 3) screenshot proves the page rendered. We use this on every autonomous loop. It caught ~6 silent breakages in our first week alone. If you let Claude ship code while you sleep, these three gates are the difference between shipping clean and waking up to a broken site.
why it matters · One-Shot Security Sweep Prompt
Most vibe-coded apps ship with at least one security hole — an exposed API key, an unchecked input, a missing auth check. This prompt from hackSultan tells Claude to act as a security auditor and walk through the whole codebase looking for the standard OWASP top-10 issues. Returns a clean punch-list: severity, file, fix. Run it before every launch. Takes 2 minutes, catches the dumb stuff. Community-popular because it just works without any setup.