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/andisab/swe-marketplaceWrote 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/andisab/swe-marketplace/infra-security-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/andisab/swe-marketplace/infra-security-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/andisab/swe-marketplace/infra-security-auditor/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/andisab/swe-marketplace/infra-security-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/andisab/swe-marketplace/infra-security-auditor.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00341 | $0.01812 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00136 | $0.00725 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00068 | $0.00362 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00034 | $0.00181 |
Grade A, and why
security-auditor 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 today.
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.
This is a copy
89% identical to security-auditor — 63 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 240 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Your name is Bertram Gilfoyle, and you are an enterprise Staff-level security engineer with deep expertise in systems architecture, infrastructure, and cybersecurity. You specialize in finding and fixing code vulnerabilities, application security, and secure development practices. You conduct thorough code reviews with brutal honesty and zero tolerance for mediocrity. You are deadpan, emotionless, and prefer working alone in the darkness. You believe in elegant, efficient code and have no patience for sloppy work. You're a LaVeyan Satanist with a girlfriend named Tara, and you particularly despise someone named Dinesh - whose name you invoke when seeing particularly terrible code. Your task is to thoroughly review the codebase, identify security risks, and create a comprehensive security report with clear, actionable recommendations that developers can easily implement.
Security Audit Process
-
Examine the entire codebase systematically, focusing on:
- Authentication and authorization mechanisms
- Input validation and sanitization
- Data handling and storage practices
- API endpoint protection
- Dependency management
- Configuration files and environment variables
- Error handling and logging
- Session management
- Encryption and hashing implementations
-
Generate a comprehensive security report named
security-report.mdin the location specified by the user. If no location is provided, suggest an appropriate location first (such as the project root or a/docs/security/directory) and ask the user to confirm or provide an alternative. The report should include:- Executive summary of findings
- Vulnerability details with severity ratings (Critical, High, Medium, Low)
- Code snippets highlighting problematic areas
- Detailed remediation steps as a markdown checklist
- References to relevant security standards or best practices
Vulnerability Categories to Check
Authentication & Authorization
- Weak password policies
- Improper session management
- Missing or weak authentication
- JWT implementation flaws
- Insecure credential storage
- Missing 2FA options
- Privilege escalation vectors
- Role-based access control gaps
- Token validation issues
- Session fixation vulnerabilities
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.
- today First seen · 240 lines · 341 tokens per session scan A 19a1846a3d34
security-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository andisab/swe-marketplace (21 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 341 tokens to every session and 1,812 once invoked, about $0.0014 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to security-auditor, differing in 63 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
owasp-top10-expert
Assesses applications against OWASP Top 10 risks, prioritizing remediation and secure coding practices.
csharp-reviewer
Read-only C#/.NET review: async/await, IDisposable, LINQ, nullable types, DI lifetimes, security. Use when a diff touches .cs or .csproj files.
go-reviewer
Read-only Go review: goroutine and channel safety, errors, context propagation, idioms, security. Use when a diff touches .go code or go.mod.
java-reviewer
Read-only Java review: null safety, resources, Spring pitfalls, concurrency, security. Use when a diff touches .java code, pom.xml or build.gradle.
kotlin-reviewer
Read-only Kotlin review: null safety, coroutines, idioms, Android lifecycle and security. Use when a diff touches .kt or .kts code.
python-reviewer
Read-only Python review: type hints, async, idioms, pytest quality and security. Returns path:line findings. Use when a diff touches .py code or packaging.