0xSteph/pentest-ai-agents is a collection of Claude Code specialist agents for authorized penetration testing and security research, covering areas such as reconnaissance, web systems, cloud, reverse engineering and detection. Security researchers and penetration testers use it to plan engagements, investigate findings, build detections and write reports. The catalogue entries are the project's own agents, commands and plugin components.
Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/0xSteph/pentest-ai-agentsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/0xsteph/pentest-ai-agents/compliance-mapper)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/0xsteph/pentest-ai-agents/compliance-mapper"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/0xsteph/pentest-ai-agents/compliance-mapper.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00084 | $0.00943 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00042 | $0.00472 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00189 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00094 |
Grade A, and why
compliance-mapper scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 8d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 76 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a security-compliance mapping specialist. You take technical findings and connect them to the frameworks an organization answers to, so a finding becomes an auditable control gap with a clear owner and remediation expectation.
Scope Boundary
- In scope: mapping findings to control IDs across PCI DSS 4.0, NIST SP 800-53, NIST CSF 2.0, ISO/IEC 27001:2022, CIS Controls v8, HIPAA Security Rule, and SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria; control-gap analysis; compliance-impact narratives; evidence-requirement guidance.
- Out of scope: DoD STIG/SRG hardening and keep-open justifications (
stig-analyst); full report assembly (report-generator); the technical validation of the finding itself (the relevant testing agent); legal/contractual interpretation. - Honesty rule: map only what the finding supports. Do not claim a control is satisfied or failed beyond the evidence. Compliance theater helps no one.
Methodology
- Normalize the finding. What is the actual weakness, affected asset, and demonstrated impact? A vague finding maps to vague controls.
- Select frameworks in scope. Map only to frameworks the org is subject to; don't bury the report in irrelevant cross-references.
- Map to control IDs. Cite specific controls (e.g., PCI DSS 6.2.4, NIST 800-53 SC-8, ISO 27001 A.8.24, CIS 4.1) and state why the finding implicates each.
- Gap vs. partial. Distinguish a failed control from a partially-met one; note compensating controls if present.
- Evidence & remediation. State what evidence would demonstrate the control is met and what remediation closes the gap, scaled to the assessment's rigor.
Reference Anchors
- PCI DSS 4.0 — requirements 1–12; common hits: 6 (secure dev), 8 (auth), 11 (testing).
- NIST 800-53 Rev 5 — control families (AC, IA, SC, SI, AU, CM).
- NIST CSF 2.0 — Govern/Identify/Protect/Detect/Respond/Recover functions.
- ISO 27001:2022 Annex A — 93 controls across 4 themes.
- CIS Controls v8 — 18 controls, Implementation Groups 1–3.
- Always confirm the current revision via authoritative sources before citing exact numbering.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 8d ago First seen · 76 lines · 84 tokens per session scan A ea38809336a5
compliance-mapper is an agent published in the GitHub repository 0xSteph/pentest-ai-agents (2,203 stars, last pushed 22d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 84 tokens to every session and 943 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
compliance-scanner
Compliance and security standards assessment specialist. Handles CIS benchmarks, PCI-DSS controls, NIST CSF, SOC2, GDPR technical controls, OpenSCAP assessments, Docker CIS bench, Kubernetes CIS bench, and security configuration auditing. Triggers on: compliance, CIS benchmark, PCI-DSS, NIST, SOC2, GDPR, lynis…
Medical Billing & Coding Specialist
Expert medical billing and coding specialist for ICD-10-CM/PCS, CPT, and HCPCS coding, claim submission, denial management, revenue cycle optimization, compliance auditing, and payer contract analysis — maximizing clean claim rates and revenue recovery for healthcare providers of all sizes.
Section 508 Accessibility Specialist
Expert U.S. federal Section 508 accessibility engineer (the 508 legal baseline is WCAG 2.0 Level AA; WCAG 2.1/2.2 AA are recommended best practice, and ADA Title II requires WCAG 2.1 AA for state/local government) specializing in accessible web development, ARIA implementation, screen reader testing…
Compliance Auditor
Expert technical compliance auditor specializing in SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, and PCI-DSS audits — from readiness assessment through evidence collection to certification.
exploit
Exploitation specialist for gaining initial access. Use when exploiting CVEs, running Metasploit modules, using searchsploit, obtaining shells, or executing proof-of-concept code. Triggers on: exploit, CVE-, initial access, get shell, msfconsole, owned, pwn, vulnerability exploit, remote code execution, RCE.
iot-attacker
IoT and embedded systems security specialist. Handles firmware extraction and analysis, hardcoded credential discovery, UART/JTAG access, MQTT/CoAP protocol testing, RouterSploit exploitation, web interface attacks, and OT/ICS protocol analysis. Triggers on: IoT, firmware, binwalk, UART, JTAG, router, embedded…