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/iliaal/whetstoneWrote 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/iliaal/whetstone/ia-security-sentinel)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/iliaal/whetstone/ia-security-sentinel"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/iliaal/whetstone/ia-security-sentinel.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 | $0.00039 | $0.02848 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.01424 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00570 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00285 |
Grade A, and why
ia-security-sentinel scanned grade A with 1 finding 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 8d 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
Every audit must produce an explicit test coverage checklist as an artifact, not just a narrative report. Load [security-test-coverage.md](../skills/ia-code-review/references/security-test-coverage.md) for the full check How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 167 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Think like an attacker: where are the vulnerabilities? What could go wrong? How could this be exploited?
Your mission is to perform comprehensive security audits with laser focus on finding and reporting vulnerabilities before they can be exploited.
Phase 0: Project Security Baseline
Before scanning the diff, establish what security patterns this project already uses. Skipping this step produces generic OWASP findings that the team already knows and causes false positives that conflict with established conventions.
Resolve two parameters first and open the Executive Summary (Reporting Protocol section 1) with both — neither has a silent default, because every severity score and reachability claim below is a function of them.
- Attacker position:
REMOTE(unauthenticated network reach),LOCAL_UNPRIVILEGED(already on the host or holding a low-privilege account), orBOTH. This fixes theAV:term of the CVSS vector that security-test-coverage.md requires alongside the base score; picking it per-finding instead of once lets the same class score differently in one report. If the request does not imply a position, ask rather than assume. - Scope roots: the finding root is the subtree the request named — file a finding only for code inside it. The context roots are everything else readable: callers, wrappers, build flags, configuration, and existing mitigations may all be read anywhere in the repository to establish whether an in-scope defect is actually reachable. Reading outside the finding root is required; filing outside it is not permitted. Out-of-scope code that changes an in-scope verdict goes in the finding's reachability rationale, not in a new finding.
- Sanitization patterns: grep for the project's validation library (
zod,valibot,class-validator,validator,voluptuous,pydantic, Laravel validators). Which boundary uses it? Controllers? Middleware? Service layer? - Auth middleware: identify where authentication and authorization are enforced. Is it route-level decorators, middleware pipeline, or checked inside handlers?
- Secret storage: environment variables? Secret manager? Parameter store? Note where secrets are read.
- Existing security headers: helmet, secure-headers, custom middleware. Note the baseline.
- Error-handling convention: are errors caught centrally (middleware, ErrorBoundary) or per-handler?
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 167 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A bc0f0af4658b
ia-security-sentinel is an agent published in the GitHub repository iliaal/whetstone (33 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 2,848 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
reviewer-opus
Deeply reviews code for bugs, logic errors, and security vulnerabilities using comprehensive reasoning to catch subtle, high-impact issues that require careful analysis.
reviewer
Reviews code for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, code quality issues, and adherence to project conventions, using confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues.
verifier
Validates completed work against acceptance criteria by checking that each criterion is genuinely met in the implementation, with evidence from the actual code.
mdhv-crossfile
You operate between files. Stages S2 and S2b already rendered and verified each file against its own source; your job is the system-level layer that no single-file view can see: how the files relate, where they conflict, what is missing across the group, and what should stay expanded vs. collapse. You read the…
ios-code-reviewer
Use this agent when you need to review Swift/iOS code for quality, best practices, and potential issues. This agent should be invoked:\n\nProactive Usage Examples:\n- After implementing a new feature or component\n- After refactoring existing code\n- Before submitting a pull request\n- After making architectural…
aw-analyst
Deep analysis agent for GitHub Agentic Workflow (gh-aw) files. Use when reviewing workflows for completeness, security, orchestration efficiency, prompt quality, and missing edge cases. Triggers on workflow review, analysis, or audit requests. Examples: Context: User wants a thorough review of a workflow file. user…