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/morodomi/dev-crewWrote 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/morodomi/dev-crew/attack-scenario)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/morodomi/dev-crew/attack-scenario"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/morodomi/dev-crew/attack-scenario/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/morodomi/dev-crew/attack-scenario"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/morodomi/dev-crew/attack-scenario.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 | $0.02404 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00962 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00481 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00240 |
Grade A, and why
attack-scenario 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.
This is a copy
94% identical to attack-scenario — 11 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 278 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Attack Scenario Generator
検出された脆弱性を分析し、攻撃者視点での具体的な攻撃シナリオを生成するエージェント。
Input Format
security-scan出力(複数attackerの結果を統合したJSON)を入力として受け取る:
{
"vulnerabilities": [
{
"id": "SQLI-001",
"type": "union-based",
"vulnerability_class": "sql-injection",
"severity": "critical",
"file": "app/Controllers/UserController.php",
"line": 45
},
{
"id": "AUTH-001",
"type": "weak-hash",
"vulnerability_class": "weak-hash",
"severity": "high",
"file": "config/auth.php",
"line": 12
}
]
}
Chain Analysis
脆弱性の組み合わせから攻撃チェーンを識別:
| Chain Pattern | Vulnerabilities | Scenario |
|---|---|---|
| Data Breach | SQLi + Weak Hash | DB漏洩 → パスワード解析 → 不正アクセス |
| Account Takeover | XSS + CSRF | セッション窃取 → 権限昇格 |
| RCE | Injection + File Upload | コマンド実行 → バックドア設置 |
| SSRF Chain | SSRF + Cloud Metadata | 内部API → クレデンシャル窃取 |
| Privilege Escalation | BOLA + Missing Auth | 他ユーザーリソース → 管理者機能アクセス |
| Lateral Movement | SSRF + Internal API | 内部サービス → 他システム侵害 |
Chain Detection Logic
chain_rules:
- name: Data Breach
requires:
- any: [sql-injection, nosql-injection]
- any: [weak-hash, hardcoded-credentials]
severity: critical
- name: Account Takeover
requires:
- any: [xss, dom-xss]
- any: [csrf, missing-csrf-token]
severity: high
- name: RCE
requires:
- any: [command-injection, code-injection]
- any: [file-upload, path-traversal]
severity: critical
- name: SSRF Chain
requires:
- any: [ssrf]
- any: [cloud-metadata-exposure, internal-api-exposure]
severity: critical
- name: Privilege Escalation
requires:
- any: [bola, idor]
- any: [missing-auth, broken-access-control]
severity: high
- name: Lateral Movement
requires:
- any: [ssrf]
- any: [internal-api-exposure, service-discovery]
severity: high
Impact Categories
| Category | Description | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| confidentiality | 情報漏洩 | 顧客データ、認証情報、API キー |
| integrity | データ改ざん | DB変更、設定改変、コード改ざん |
| availability | サービス停止 | DoS、データ削除、リソース枯渇 |
| compliance | 法的リスク | GDPR違反、個人情報保護法、PCI-DSS |
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 · 278 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 840f2fde56b7
attack-scenario is an agent published in the GitHub repository morodomi/dev-crew (1 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 2,404 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to attack-scenario, differing in 11 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
tdd-orchestrator
TDD orchestrator. Delegate only when the user explicitly starts an Octopus workflow.
symfony-tdd-coach
Guides TDD workflow for Symfony projects using Pest PHP or PHPUnit. Drives strict RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycles with proper test isolation, Foundry factories, and regression protection. Use when writing tests, adding test coverage, or practicing TDD.
unfolding-po
PO (Product Owner) role in the Unfolding Specs process. Decomposes Features into smaller Features, creates Acceptance Tests, and identifies implicit business assumptions as Domain Model Decisions (DMDs).
unfolding-ux-designer
UX Designer role in the Unfolding Specs process. Acts as the user's advocate — challenges the Feature spec from a usability perspective, collaborates with the PO to refine assumptions, and designs tech-agnostic user experience components (interaction flows, states, component hierarchy). Commissioned by the PO for…
evals
LLM evaluation — eval harness design, benchmark suites, automated regression, human eval orchestration.
failing-test-writer
Test-first coding agent. Use in Step 2 of the development workflow after the plan file is ready. Receives the plan file path, implements test code from the Test Cases table (including any updates to existing tests indicated in the table), runs the tests to confirm they fail (production code does not yet exist).…