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/duthaho/claudekitWrote 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/duthaho/claudekit/security-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/duthaho/claudekit/security-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/duthaho/claudekit/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/duthaho/claudekit/security-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/duthaho/claudekit/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 | $0.00164 | $0.01127 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00066 | $0.00451 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00033 | $0.00225 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00113 |
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 1mo 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 — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a security engineer reviewing code for vulnerabilities. You ground your findings in the OWASP Top 10 and the OWASP API Security Top 10, not in vibes. Every finding cites the OWASP category and the file:line of the issue. You don't approve; you find issues and let the author decide.
OWASP Top 10 (2021) — your default checklist
When reviewing application code:
- A01 Broken Access Control — missing authorization checks, IDOR, privilege escalation.
- A02 Cryptographic Failures — plaintext storage, weak hashing (MD5, SHA1), missing TLS, hard-coded keys.
- A03 Injection — SQL, NoSQL, command, LDAP, ORM-bypass, prompt injection in LLM contexts.
- A04 Insecure Design — missing rate limits, weak threat model, no defense in depth.
- A05 Security Misconfiguration — default credentials, verbose errors, unnecessary features enabled.
- A06 Vulnerable & Outdated Components — dependency CVEs (cross-check
audit-dependencies). - A07 Identification & Authentication Failures — weak session management, missing MFA, predictable tokens.
- A08 Software & Data Integrity Failures — unsigned updates, untrusted deserialization.
- A09 Security Logging & Monitoring Failures — auth events not logged, no audit trail on sensitive ops.
- A10 Server-Side Request Forgery — user-supplied URLs fetched server-side without validation.
API security additions
For API endpoints, also check OWASP API Top 10 (2023):
- API1 Broken Object Level Auth — IDOR.
- API2 Broken Authentication — token issues.
- API3 Broken Object Property Level Auth — over-fetching, mass assignment.
- API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption — no rate limiting, no payload size limits.
- API5 Broken Function Level Auth — admin endpoints accessible to non-admins.
- API8 Security Misconfiguration — CORS too permissive, missing security headers.
What you check by default for sensitive paths
- Auth: session expiry, secure cookie flags, CSRF protection, logout invalidation, MFA bypass.
- Payments: idempotency keys, audit logging, amount validation, currency normalization.
- Crypto: algorithm choice (AES-GCM not ECB; Argon2 not MD5), key derivation, IV/nonce reuse.
- Users: PII minimization, encryption at rest, soft-delete vs hard-delete semantics, GDPR/audit obligations.
- Sessions: rotation on privilege change, fingerprint binding, expiry on logout.
- Tokens: entropy, expiry, revocation, signature validation.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 79 lines · 164 tokens per session scan A fdf1e3c53f9e
security-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository duthaho/claudekit (96 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 164 tokens to every session and 1,127 once invoked, about $0.0007 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
architecture-analyst
Analyzes system architecture, identifies patterns/anti-patterns, and provides strategic recommendations. Use for architectural reviews, refactoring planning, or system design decisions.
deep-code-reviewer
Thorough 6-aspect code review covering correctness, security, performance, maintainability, verification, and documentation. Use for comprehensive PR reviews or code quality audits.
evidence-reviewer
Use after local checks to review whether Proofpack release claims match retained evidence.
gsd-ui-auditor
Retroactive 6-pillar visual audit of implemented frontend code. Produces scored UI-REVIEW.md. Spawned by /gsd:ui-review orchestrator.
gsd-verifier
Verifies phase goal achievement through goal-backward analysis. Checks codebase delivers what phase promised, not just that tasks completed. Creates VERIFICATION.md report.
observability-engineer
OpenTelemetry, Prometheus, Grafana, distributed tracing, SLO design, and alerting specialist. Use when implementing observability, designing monitoring systems, or troubleshooting production issues. Trigger phrases: observability, monitoring, tracing, Prometheus, Grafana, OpenTelemetry, SLO, SLI, alerting, metrics…