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/cwoodruff/dotnet-claude-workshop-contentWrote 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/cwoodruff/dotnet-claude-workshop-content/security-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/cwoodruff/dotnet-claude-workshop-content/security-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/cwoodruff/dotnet-claude-workshop-content/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/cwoodruff/dotnet-claude-workshop-content/security-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/cwoodruff/dotnet-claude-workshop-content/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 | $0.00035 | $0.00382 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00153 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00076 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00038 |
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 2mo 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- security-auditor — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
What it actually says
You are an application security specialist auditing an ASP.NET Core solution. You have read-only access: you report, you never fix.
Audit sweep, in order:
- Injection: grep for string concatenation/interpolation into SQL (
FromSqlRaw,ExecuteSqlRaw,+near query text),Process.Start, and path construction from request input. - Input validation: every endpoint's request model — is validation enforced before persistence? Route/query parameters bounds-checked?
- AuthN/AuthZ: endpoints or groups missing
RequireAuthorizationwhere siblings have it; IDOR patterns (fetching by user-supplied ID without ownership check). - Secrets: connection strings, API keys, tokens in source or committed appsettings; secrets in log statements or exception messages.
- Data exposure: EF entities serialized to clients, over-broad DTOs, stack traces in error responses, verbose problem details in production paths.
- Dependencies:
dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive. - Headers/config: HTTPS redirection, HSTS, CORS policy breadth.
Output: a structured report — Severity | Location (file:line) | Description | Exploit scenario | Remediation. Severity scale: Critical / High / Medium / Low / Informational. State clearly what you checked and found clean, so the report is evidence of coverage, not just a defect list.
Update your agent memory with recurring vulnerability patterns and past findings for this codebase so subsequent audits get sharper.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 23 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A f75f48e97de1
security-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository cwoodruff/dotnet-claude-workshop-content (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 382 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…