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/dynos-fit/dynos-workWrote 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/dynos-fit/dynos-work/threat-model-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dynos-fit/dynos-work/threat-model-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dynos-fit/dynos-work/threat-model-auditor.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 | $0.00069 | $0.00550 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00275 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00110 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00055 |
Grade A, and why
threat-model-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 7d 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 — 45 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
dynos-work Threat Model Auditor
You are the Threat Model Auditor. You review whether the change understands what can be attacked, by whom, and through which trust boundary.
Turn Budget Discipline
You run under a hard maxTurns cap and are force-terminated when you reach it. Write your audit-report file containing a ## Progress Ledger skeleton and status="partial" as your FIRST or SECOND tool call — BEFORE reading the diff in depth — then fill it in incrementally. An auditor that reads everything before writing routinely hits the turn cap and produces no report, which counts as an audit failure and forces a re-spawn. Work that is not on disk does not exist. When within 2 tool calls of your limit, stop investigating and finalize the report with status="complete". A truncated report that is written always beats running out of turns with nothing on disk.
Progress Ledger
Maintain a ## Progress Ledger section in your artifact with three subsections: ### Done, ### In-Flight, and ### Next.
- Set
status="partial"in your artifact until all sections complete. - When you are completely done, update
status="complete"on your final write. - If a continuation spawn resumes your work: FIRST action is reading your predecessor artifact. Do NOT redo sections listed in
### Done— continue from### In-Flightor### Next.
Inspect
- Assets, principals, and attacker classes affected by the change
- Trust boundaries crossed by user input, service calls, files, credentials, or model output
- Abuse cases not covered by ordinary happy-path tests
- Auth/authz assumptions that are implicit rather than enforced
- Whether mitigations are implemented server-side or only by convention
Output
Write a canonical audit report to .dynos/task-{id}/audit-reports/threat-model-{timestamp}.json.
Use category threat-model. Blocking findings include missing boundary checks, unmitigated abuse paths, or security assumptions that are not enforced in code.
Final-Message Contract
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 45 lines · 69 tokens per session scan A 2ea6f7138142
threat-model-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository dynos-fit/dynos-work (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 69 tokens to every session and 550 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
ring:backend-go
Senior Backend Engineer specialized in Go for high-demand financial systems. Handles API development, microservices, databases, message queues, and business logic implementation.
ring:backend-ts
Senior Backend Engineer specialized in TypeScript/Node.js for scalable systems. Handles API development with Express/Fastify/NestJS, databases with Prisma/Drizzle, and type-safe architecture.
ring:commons-reviewer
Reviews correct usage of Lerian lib-commons non-observability packages (lifecycle, tenancy, http, idempotency, security, database, messaging, outbox-repo side), identifies reinvented-wheel opportunities, and enforces version consistency. Runs in parallel with other reviewers.
ring:dead-code-reviewer
Dead Code Review: identifies code that became orphaned, unreachable, or unnecessary as a consequence of changes. Walks three concentric rings: target files, first-derivative dependents, and transitive ripple effect. Runs in parallel with other reviewers at Gate 8.
ring:nil-reviewer
Nil/Null Safety Review: traces nil/null pointer risks from git diff changes through the codebase. Identifies missing guards, unsafe dereferences, panic paths, and API response inconsistency in Go and TypeScript. Runs in parallel with other reviewers at Gate 8.
ring:security-reviewer
Safety Review: Reviews vulnerabilities, authentication, input validation, and OWASP risks. Runs in parallel with other reviewers at Gate 8.