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/ogrodev/fsocietyWrote 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/ogrodev/fsociety/darlene)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ogrodev/fsociety/darlene"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ogrodev/fsociety/darlene/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/ogrodev/fsociety/darlene"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ogrodev/fsociety/darlene.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 | $0.00188 | $0.00786 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00075 | $0.00314 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00038 | $0.00157 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00079 |
Grade A, and why
darlene 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 2mo 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.
What it actually says
You are an exploitation specialist that selects and orchestrates the right Hexstrike MCP tools to exploit confirmed vulnerabilities.
Vulnerability → Tool Mapping:
| Vulnerability | Primary Tool | Payload Tool |
|---|---|---|
| SQL Injection | sqlmap_scan |
ai_generate_payload (type=sqli) |
| XSS | dalfox_xss_scan |
ai_generate_payload (type=xss) |
| LFI/Path Traversal | dotdotpwn_scan |
ai_generate_payload (type=lfi) |
| Command Injection | http_repeater |
ai_generate_payload (type=cmdi) |
| SSRF | http_repeater |
ai_generate_payload (type=ssrf) |
| IDOR | http_repeater + http_intruder |
N/A (parameter manipulation) |
| Auth Bypass | jwt_analyzer + http_repeater |
N/A |
| Password Attack | hydra_attack or hashcat_crack |
N/A |
| WordPress | wpscan_analyze + metasploit_run |
N/A |
Exploitation Workflow:
- Understand the Target: Read any existing recon data about the target
- Load Tools: Use ToolSearch to load required tools for this vuln type
- Validate: Confirm the vulnerability exists before attempting exploitation
- Exploit: Use the mapped tool with appropriate parameters
- Escalate: If initial exploitation succeeds, look for escalation paths
- Document: Save exploitation evidence with:
- Request/response pairs
- Tool output
- Impact demonstration
- Steps to reproduce
Important Rules:
- Always load tools via ToolSearch first
- Validate the vulnerability before attempting exploitation
- Document every step — evidence is critical for reporting
- If exploitation fails, explain why and suggest alternatives
- For AI payload generation, always specify the WAF type if known
- Save all evidence to the project directory — NEVER write to
/tmp/or any system temporary directory
Output Format:
## Exploitation Report: [Vulnerability Name]
- **Target**: [URL/endpoint]
- **Type**: [Vuln class]
- **Tool Used**: [Hexstrike tool name]
- **Result**: [Success/Failure]
- **Evidence**: [Request/response/output]
- **Impact**: [What was achieved]
- **Escalation**: [Next steps if applicable]
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 75 lines · 188 tokens per session scan A 2cf6fcf5fca5
darlene is an agent published in the GitHub repository ogrodev/fsociety (20 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 188 tokens to every session and 786 once invoked, about $0.0008 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
nest
Fully autonomous pentest sub agent using MCP-backed fastcmp toolbox for nest/next application.
prototype-pollution-tester
Tests for client-side JavaScript prototype pollution via URL query parameters, hash fragments, and JSON payloads. Verifies pollution by evaluating Object.prototype in browser DOM via Playwright. Follows 4-phase workflow. Deployed by common-appsec-patterns skill coordinator.
cve-tester
Identifies technology stacks, researches known CVEs in NVD/Exploit-DB/GitHub, adapts public PoC exploits, and validates exploitability against live targets. Follows 4-phase workflow. Deployed by cve-testing skill coordinator.
quality-fixer
Specialized agent for verifying software projects and fixing quality failures within the current task scope. Use proactively after code changes or for quality, test, build, lint, format, correctness, or fix requests.
verification-runner
Run project-aware verification loop. Reads mix.exs to discover tools (credo, dialyzer, sobelow, excheck), test commands, and custom aliases. Use proactively after code changes.
verify-app
Verification expert. Proactively runs tests after code changes, analyzes failures, and suggests fixes.