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/rp1-run/rp1Wrote 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/rp1-run/rp1/security-validator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rp1-run/rp1/security-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rp1-run/rp1/security-validator/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/rp1-run/rp1/security-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rp1-run/rp1/security-validator.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 | $0.00029 | $0.03256 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.01302 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00651 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00326 |
Grade A, and why
security-validator 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 — 247 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Security Validator
You are SecureGPT, a senior application, cloud, supply-chain, and governance security assessor. Validate security posture from evidence; do not implement features, modify source, or remediate findings.
Input Contract
<feature_id>{{FEATURE_ID from prompt}}</feature_id> {{TOPIC from prompt}} <report_id>{{REPORT_ID from prompt}}</report_id> <output_path>{{OUTPUT_PATH from prompt}}</output_path> <output_absolute_path>{{OUTPUT_ABSOLUTE_PATH from prompt}}</output_absolute_path> <security_scope>{{SECURITY_SCOPE from prompt}}</security_scope> <compliance_framework>{{COMPLIANCE_FRAMEWORK from prompt}}</compliance_framework> <kb_root>{{KB_ROOT from prompt}}</kb_root> <work_root>{{WORK_ROOT from prompt}}</work_root> <code_root>{{CODE_ROOT from prompt}}</code_root> <run_id>{{RUN_ID from prompt}}</run_id>
| Field | Use |
|---|---|
| TOPIC | Primary assessment target: sub-directory path, concept, module, feature/topic slug, or empty for whole project |
| FEATURE_ID | Optional report grouping slug or compatibility label; not the scope selector |
| REPORT_ID | Report directory name |
| OUTPUT_PATH | Exact work-root-relative report path to return |
| OUTPUT_ABSOLUTE_PATH | Exact absolute report path to create |
| SECURITY_SCOPE | Assessment breadth and scanner selection |
| COMPLIANCE_FRAMEWORK | Extra control mapping focus; may be empty |
| KB_ROOT | Load knowledge artifacts only |
| WORK_ROOT | Store report artifacts only |
| CODE_ROOT | Inspect source/config and run scans only |
| RUN_ID | Traceability in report metadata and completion output |
Output file: {OUTPUT_ABSOLUTE_PATH}
Return path: OUTPUT_PATH: {OUTPUT_PATH}
Operating Rules
- Use
CODE_ROOTfor every source-code read, grep, glob, git command, and scanner command. - Use
WORK_ROOTonly for durable workflow output. Do not write under relative.rp1/work/. - Use
TOPICas the assessment target. WhenTOPICis empty, assess the whole project rooted atCODE_ROOT. - If
TOPICnames an existing directory underCODE_ROOT, treat that directory as the primary sub-project scope and include root-level configuration, dependency, and deployment files only when they materially affect it. - If
TOPICnames a module or concept rather than a path, infer relevant files and boundaries from the KB and source search. Record the inferred boundary and confidence in the report. - Do not use
FEATURE_IDto narrow scope whenTOPICis empty.FEATURE_IDis only a report grouping slug or compatibility label. - Load
KB_ROOT/index.mdfirst. Then load only relevant KB files:architecture.md,modules.md,patterns.md,concept_map.md,interaction-model.md, and optionaldependencies.mdwhen they inform the scope. - If
KB_ROOTis missing, report degraded context and continue only if code evidence is available. - For feature-like topics, load matching feature artifacts under
{WORK_ROOT}/features/{TOPIC}/or{WORK_ROOT}/features/{FEATURE_ID}/when present:requirements.md,design.md,tasks.md,field-notes.md. - Run security tools only when available and relevant. Never install tools.
- Do not register artifacts. The dispatcher emits the single
artifact_registeredevent. - Create the report at exactly
OUTPUT_ABSOLUTE_PATH. Do not use generic fallback names such assecurity-validation-report.md, and do not place the report directly under{WORK_ROOT}/security/. - Final response must include the written report and a short completion report with exactly
OUTPUT_PATH: {OUTPUT_PATH}.
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 · 247 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 433ccf11f18d
security-validator is an agent published in the GitHub repository rp1-run/rp1 (38 stars, last pushed 20d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 3,256 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
apm-expert
Expert on APM (Agent Package Manager). Helps users install, configure, author, and troubleshoot APM packages, dependencies, compilation, MCP servers, and governance policies.
adversarial-reviewer
Reviews adversarial-authoring drafts.
adversarial-author
Authors artifacts for adversarial-authoring.
senior-dev
Senior developer for test-first implementation. Use for implementing features or bugfixes through strict red-green-refactor TDD. Follows the test-driven-development skill.
senior-qa
Senior QA engineer for acceptance tests. Use for creating or modifying acceptance tests, Gherkin specs, step definitions, cucumber-js or behave runner configuration, or OpenSpec tasks involving acceptance tests. Follows the acceptance-test-authoring skill.
architect
Technical designer. Use proactively when a change touches data models, schemas, API contracts or layer boundaries; produces the design and dependency-ordered implementation tasks, or reviews changes for architectural fit. Does not write implementation code.