Skills Your Team Needs for LLM Source-Code Security

When a team first wires Claude into its source-code security workflow, the conversation almost always starts with tooling and ends somewhere uncomfortable: who on this team actually knows how to operate this? The model can read a diff, reason about a tainted data flow, and propose a patch, but it does not replace the judgment that decides whether a finding is real, exploitable, and worth a developer's afternoon. That judgment is a skill, and it is not the same skill an AppSec engineer brought to the job in 2021. This post is about the specific capabilities your people need to learn for LLM-assisted code security to actually work — and how hiring shifts when a senior agent is sitting inside your pipeline.

The uncomfortable truth is that most security teams adopting Claude Code or the Claude Agent SDK underinvest in people and overinvest in prompts. They assume the model is the hard part. It isn't. The hard part is building humans who can supervise an agent that reads an entire repository faster than they can, who can tell a hallucinated vulnerability from a genuine one, and who can write the guardrails that keep an autonomous reviewer from leaking secrets or rubber-stamping risky merges.

The core skill is supervising an agent, not writing the scanner

For a decade, the prized skill in application security was knowing how to author rules — a Semgrep pattern, a CodeQL query, a regex that catches hardcoded credentials. Those skills don't disappear, but they get demoted. With Claude reading source directly, your engineers spend less time encoding what a SQL injection looks like and more time defining what good supervision looks like. The new core competency is agent supervision: structuring the task, scoping what the agent may touch, reading its reasoning critically, and catching the cases where confident prose hides a wrong conclusion.

This is a genuinely different muscle. A supervisor needs to know the codebase's threat model well enough to spot when Claude flags a theoretical issue that the architecture already mitigates. They need to recognize when the agent has anchored on a plausible-but-wrong root cause. And they need calibration — a sense of how often the model is right about a given class of finding — so they can apply heavier human review where it earns its keep. Teams that build this calibration treat the agent like a sharp but junior reviewer whose work always gets a second read on anything that touches authentication, cryptography, or money.

Prompt and context engineering becomes a security discipline

The quality of an LLM security review is bounded by the context it receives. An engineer who hands Claude a single file gets file-local findings; an engineer who provides the data-flow neighbors, the framework's security defaults, and the relevant internal coding standard gets findings that account for how the code actually runs. Context engineering — deciding what goes into the window, in what order, and with what supporting Skills — is now a security skill, not just a prompting trick.

flowchart TD
  A["Incoming pull request"] --> B{"Who reviews?"}
  B -->|Agent supervisor| C["Scopes task & context for Claude"]
  C --> D["Claude reads diff + data-flow neighbors"]
  D --> E{"Finding plausible?"}
  E -->|Needs judgment| F["AppSec engineer triages"]
  E -->|Clear & low-risk| G["Auto-comment with fix"]
  F --> H["Threat-model decision & merge gate"]
  G --> H

Concretely, teams build internal Agent Skills that encode their own security rules: a Skill that knows the company's approved crypto library, one that documents which internal services require mutual TLS, one that lists the deprecated APIs that must never reappear. These Skills are loaded dynamically when Claude touches relevant code, and writing them well is a craft. The person who can translate a tribal security convention into a crisp, loadable Skill is suddenly one of the most valuable people on the team.

Developers learn to read and challenge AI findings

The skills shift is not confined to the security org. Every developer whose pull requests now get an AI security pass needs a new literacy: how to interpret an LLM finding without either blindly accepting it or reflexively dismissing it. A developer who treats every Claude comment as gospel will ship the model's occasional bad patch. A developer who ignores them all defeats the point. The middle path — engaging with the reasoning, asking the agent to justify itself, and escalating the genuinely ambiguous ones — is a teachable habit that good teams build deliberately.

This also changes what you hire for at the junior level. A new developer no longer proves themselves by memorizing the OWASP Top Ten; they prove themselves by demonstrating sound judgment when an agent hands them a security claim. Interview loops are beginning to include a 'review the agent's review' exercise: here is a diff, here is Claude's finding, tell us where the model is right, where it is wrong, and what you'd do next.

The hiring shift: fewer rule-writers, more system designers

Put the pieces together and the org chart moves. The classic role of 'static-analysis specialist who maintains the rule library' shrinks. In its place grow two roles. The first is the security platform engineer who builds the harness — the MCP servers that give Claude safe, read-scoped access to source and ticketing systems, the hooks that gate merges, the eval suites that measure whether the agent's findings are improving or regressing. The second is the senior triager whose entire value is judgment at the boundary, on exactly the findings the model can't be trusted to close alone.

Notably, both roles reward depth over breadth. The platform engineer must understand both security and how Claude behaves as an agent — its failure modes, its token economics, how multi-agent runs cost several times more than a single pass and when that cost is justified. The triager must understand exploitation deeply enough to overrule a confident model. The generalist who knew a little of everything is less valuable than the specialist who can go toe-to-toe with the agent in their domain.

What leaders should fund first

For engineering leaders, the practical takeaway is to fund three things before buying more tooling. First, training time: give your AppSec engineers structured practice supervising Claude on real findings, with feedback. Second, a Skills library owned by a named person, so institutional security knowledge becomes machine-loadable rather than trapped in senior heads. Third, an evaluation practice — without it, you cannot tell whether your agent is getting better or quietly drifting, and you cannot defend the program to an auditor.

A security-supervision skill is the learned ability to direct, interrogate, and correct an AI agent's security reasoning so that its findings can be trusted at the merge gate. That is the capability your hiring and training should now optimize for — more than any single tool.

Frequently asked questions

Do we still need dedicated AppSec engineers if Claude reviews code?

Yes, and arguably they become more important. The model amplifies a good engineer's reach across the codebase but cannot own the threat-model judgment, the merge-gate decisions, or the responsibility for a missed vulnerability. You need fewer rule-maintainers and more senior triagers who can supervise the agent and overrule it when warranted.

What should a junior developer learn first to work alongside an AI reviewer?

Learn to read a security finding critically: reproduce the claimed issue, ask the agent to justify its reasoning, and decide whether it is real and exploitable in your context. That single habit — neither blind trust nor reflexive dismissal — is the highest-leverage skill for working with Claude on code security.

How do we capture our existing security knowledge for the agent to use?

Encode it as Agent Skills — small, focused folders of instructions Claude loads when it touches relevant code. A Skill might document your approved crypto library or your authentication conventions. Assign a named owner; treat the Skills library as living documentation that the agent and your humans both rely on.

Will this reduce headcount on security teams?

It changes the shape more than the size. Routine rule-writing and first-pass triage compress, but demand grows for platform engineers who build the agent harness and senior reviewers who handle the judgment calls. Most teams reinvest the saved time into broader coverage rather than cutting people.

Bringing agentic security to your phone lines

CallSphere applies these same agentic-AI patterns — supervised agents, loadable skills, and human-in-the-loop gates — to voice and chat, with assistants that answer every call, use tools mid-conversation, and book work around the clock. See it live at callsphere.ai.

---

Source & attribution: This is an independent, original explainer inspired by Anthropic's coverage on the Claude blog. Claude, Claude Code, Claude Cowork, Claude Opus, and the Model Context Protocol are products and trademarks of Anthropic. CallSphere is not affiliated with or endorsed by Anthropic.