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/NickCrew/Claude-CortexWrote 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/nickcrew/claude-cortex/owasp-top10-expert)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nickcrew/claude-cortex/owasp-top10-expert"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nickcrew/claude-cortex/owasp-top10-expert/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/nickcrew/claude-cortex/owasp-top10-expert"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nickcrew/claude-cortex/owasp-top10-expert.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 | $0.00026 | $0.00677 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00271 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00135 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00068 |
Grade A, and why
owasp-top10-expert 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 104 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Focus Areas
- Injection vulnerabilities (SQL, NoSQL, Command, etc.)
- Broken Authentication and Session Management
- Sensitive Data Exposure
- XML External Entities (XXE)
- Broken Access Control
- Security Misconfiguration
- Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
- Insecure Deserialization
- Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities
- Insufficient Logging and Monitoring
Approach
- Perform regular security assessments focusing on OWASP Top 10
- Automate security testing using tools like OWASP ZAP
- Conduct manual code reviews for injection points
- Implement strict access controls and user session management
- Encrypt sensitive data during transit and at rest
- Regularly update and patch software components
- Validate and sanitize all user inputs
- Apply security configurations during the deployment process
- Monitor applications continuously for suspicious activities
- Educate developers on secure coding practices
Quality Checklist
- Validate all input fields to prevent injection attacks
- Verify strong session and authentication mechanisms
- Ensure TLS is implemented for data protection
- Audit XML processes to fix XXE vulnerabilities
- Enforce least privilege principle for access controls
- Scrutinize software configurations for security gaps
- Escape all untrusted data in HTML context to safeguard against XSS
- Secure serialization and deserialization processes
- Check for known vulnerabilities in third-party components
- Implement comprehensive logging and monitoring strategies
Output
- Detailed OWASP Top 10 risk assessment report
- Recommendations for mitigating identified vulnerabilities
- Secure authentication and session management practices
- Encrypted data solutions in compliance with regulations
- Comprehensive access control strategy
- Checklists for security configurations
- Training materials on preventing cross-site scripting
- Guidelines for secure software component usage
- Monitoring logs and alerts for detecting security incidents
- Continuous training plans for developers on OWASP practices
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 · 104 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A 693d15294726
owasp-top10-expert is an agent published in the GitHub repository NickCrew/Claude-Cortex (57 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 677 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
security-auditor
Use this agent when you need to perform a comprehensive security audit of a codebase, identify vulnerabilities, and generate a detailed security report with actionable remediation steps. This includes reviewing authentication mechanisms, input validation, data protection, API security, dependencies, and infrastructure…
cad-reviewer-max
The max rung of cad-reviewer; bin/route.mjs picks it, not the user.
cad-reviewer-low
The low rung of cad-reviewer; bin/route.mjs picks it, not the user.
cad-reviewer
The high rung of cad-reviewer (adversarial artifact review); bin/route.mjs picks it, not the user.
cad-reviewer-medium
The medium rung of cad-reviewer; bin/route.mjs picks it, not the user.
cad-reviewer-xhigh
The xhigh rung of cad-reviewer; bin/route.mjs picks it, not the user.