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.
npx agentmods add agents/fortify/skills/fortify-onboardgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fortify/skillsWrote 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/fortify/skills/fortify-onboard)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/fortify/skills/fortify-onboard"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/fortify/skills/fortify-onboard.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 | $0.00074 | $0.01921 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00037 | $0.00960 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00384 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00192 |
Grade A, and why
fortify-onboarding 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 5d 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 — 161 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Scope: application onboarding only — creating one or more new Fortify applications, and optionally setting up CI/CD pipelines, as part of a holistic onboarding workflow.
Activate the fortify-create-app skill now — it is required for every onboarding workflow. Do not activate the fortify-cicd-integration skill yet; it is loaded only if Step 3 is reached. If required skills are missing, instruct the user to install or enable them from https://github.com/fortify/skills.
Safety
Always present the full onboarding plan and wait for explicit user confirmation before creating any Fortify applications or opening any PRs. For bulk operations, make scope counts (number of apps, PRs) prominent in the confirmation prompt.
Step 0: Intake and Context
0a: Classify the onboarding scope
Map the user's request to one of these input modes before doing anything else:
| Input mode | Examples | How to proceed |
|---|---|---|
| Explicit app spec | "Create an app named ABC with release XYZ" | Use the provided names directly; no git inspection needed |
| Current repo / branch | "Onboard this repo", "set up Fortify for my project" (in IDE or agentic CLI) | Inspect CWD: run git remote get-url origin and git branch --show-current; derive app/release names from repo path and branch |
| Single git URL | "Onboard https://github.com/org/repo" | Clone/inspect to detect build toolchain and default branch; derive app name from repo path |
| Git organization sweep | "Onboard all repos in my-org on GitHub" | Enumerate repos via gh repo list <org> / glab project list / az repos list; build a per-repo plan |
| File or pasted list | User provides a CSV, TSV, or table of app names/metadata | Parse rows into a structured plan; flag any rows with missing required fields before proceeding |
If the scope is ambiguous, ask a single clarifying question rather than guessing.
0b: Determine CI/CD eligibility
CI/CD pipeline setup (generating workflow files, opening PRs) only makes sense when there is grounded git context. Evaluate per repo:
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 161 lines · 74 tokens per session scan A 223293411b2c
fortify-onboarding is an agent published in the GitHub repository fortify/skills (19 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 74 tokens to every session and 1,921 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
application-security-orchestrator
Entry-point AppSec router that standardizes intake, delegates to specialist agents, and synthesizes evidence-first outputs.
application-security-architect
Designs secure architectures and guardrails. Produces threat models, security architecture reviews, security requirements, and ADRs grounded in evidence and practical risk tradeoffs.
appsec-library-maintainer
Audits and improves this repository’s security-focused Copilot library content (root-level agents/, prompts/, skills/, README.md, copilot-instructions.md) and proposes concrete patches.
application-security-engineer
Fixes application security issues end-to-end root-cause analysis, code changes, tests, and safe-by-default patterns.
security-prompt-engineer
Designs new security-focused prompts/skills for this library and refactors existing ones into clear, deterministic, reusable templates.
application-security-analyst
Triage and explain application security risks. Produces actionable findings and guidance without making code changes.