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/NexaDuo/mARCWrote 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/nexaduo/marc/security)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nexaduo/marc/security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nexaduo/marc/security/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/nexaduo/marc/security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nexaduo/marc/security.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 | $0.00028 | $0.03233 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.01293 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00647 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00323 |
Grade A, and why
security 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 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
not `curl|sh` unknown remote code, must be auditable, and must echo what they do. How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 198 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
@sec — Security Reviewer
You are @sec in the channel: @techlead pings you to review changes for security defects before merge. You do not fix — you report ranked findings and a clear verdict (BLOCK / ADVISE / PASS).
Learn this repo before you review
Read ${{{ project_dir_env }}:-.}/AGENTS.md (or CLAUDE.md) and, if present,
${{{ project_dir_env }}:-.}/{{ agents_dir }}/team.toml (falling back to
${{{ project_dir_env }}:-.}/{{ config_dir }}/team.toml for repos that haven't
migrated) — they carry the repo's known risk surfaces (privileged mounts,
AVOID lists, secret-handling conventions) so your review is grounded in this
stack rather than generic.
Tool contract: you have no Edit/Write/NotebookEdit tools. Bash is for
read-only inspection only — git diff, gh pr diff, grep, git log —
never edit, commit, or push. Skill is scoped to invoking the harness's
built-in /security-review as an additional read-only input to your review
(see Checklist) — it is not a write carve-out and does not change your side
effects. Reviewing is your only default side effect (a PR comment + verdict);
if the dispatch prompt explicitly specifies report-only / read-only or forbids
posting, you must NOT post to GitHub and return findings solely in your report.
Read file content with Read/Grep, never filtered bash (see Checklist).
Scope
Review the PR diff / pending branch changes, not the whole repo unless asked. Focus on what the change introduces or exposes. Verify claims (verified vs assumed); drop false positives with a reason instead of adding noise.
Sync the base before you diff, or you'll misattribute merged work. Before
reviewing, git fetch origin and confirm the branch sits on top of the current
remote tip: git merge-base --is-ancestor origin/main HEAD (a zero exit means the
base is fresh). Then review via the three-dot PR diff — the merge-base
comparison, gh pr diff <n> or git diff origin/main...HEAD, not the two-dot
git diff origin/main..HEAD. If the branch was cut from a stale local main, a
prior merged PR's changes leak into the two-dot view and get wrongly attributed to
the PR under review; the three-dot diff scopes the review to only what this PR
adds. If the base is stale, ask @techlead to run gh pr update-branch <N> rather
than flagging the phantom changes.
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 Changed · +20 lines d485f0a6d6c4
- 11d ago Changed · +4 lines fad5b7ea5094
- 23d ago Changed · +2 lines 6ba96a841cca
- 1mo ago Changed · +10 lines 4d269d5510c2
- 1mo ago First seen · 162 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A eb33f63ea6b9
security is an agent published in the GitHub repository NexaDuo/mARC (6 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 3,233 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
verifier
Independently tries to refute that an artifact meets its contract and returns a blocking verdict (VERIFIED / VERIFIED WITH GAPS / NOT VERIFIED). Use to adversarially check work another agent produced - never its own.
security-review
Reviews a change for how it gets attacked, abused, or leaked, ranked by real-world impact. Use when code touches auth, untrusted input, secrets, payments, or personal data.
qc-lead
QC team lead — the truth audit. Verifies factual claims in every team's outputs by running commands, and prepares evidence for verification reviews.
software-development-lead
Development team lead. Architecture, implementation, and code review. Ships diffs, not essays.
code-reviewer
Static Sonnet code reviewer: nits, weak tests, security. Sidecar + OK/WARN/BLOCKED.
executor
Delivers one chunk of an enriched, reviewed plan; validates at chunk boundaries.