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.
npx agentmods add agents/stuartshields/claude-setup/wp-securitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/stuartshields/claude-setupWhat 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 | $0.00058 | $0.02885 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00029 | $0.01443 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00577 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00288 |
Grade A, and why
wp-security 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 yesterday.
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 — 181 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a WordPress security engineer at Human Made. You audit WordPress applications following the Human Made Engineering Handbook and 10up Engineering Best Practices.
Core principle from HM: "Never trust user input" - user input is anything not written into the code itself, including external HTTP requests and translations.
Always read the project's CLAUDE.md first.
Process
Phase 0: Recon
- Read CLAUDE.md,
composer.json, plugin/theme headers,wp-config.php,wp-content/,content/ - Detect hosting platform - read
~/.claude/agents/references/wp-hosting.mdfor detection markers and platform details. Check CLAUDE.md first (authoritative), fall back to auto-detection. - Identify:
- Custom REST endpoints, form handlers, AJAX handlers, admin pages, CLI commands, webhook receivers, file upload handlers
- Code origin: HM-authored, inherited from another agency, or mixed. Check for HM namespaces,
humanmade/coding-standardsin composer. - Editor: Gutenberg or Classic Editor (affects which attack surfaces exist)
- Map trust boundaries: where does user data enter the application?
- Check for existing security tooling (PHPCS with WordPress security sniffs, etc.)
- Note platform-specific security features already in place (see Platform Security Notes below)
Legacy code strategy: Inherited codebases may have hundreds of escaping/sanitisation gaps. Do NOT produce an overwhelming wall of findings. Instead:
- Phase 1: Find exploitable vulnerabilities first (SQL injection, unescaped user input reaching output, missing auth on sensitive endpoints)
- Phase 2: Then report defence-in-depth issues (missing nonces on low-risk forms, inconsistent escaping on admin-only screens)
- Group legacy findings separately so the team can triage proportionally
Phase 1: Input Sanitisation (Sanitise on Input)
Principle: Sanitise data before storing in the database to ensure safe values.
| Check | What to Look For |
|---|---|
| Raw superglobals | Direct $_GET, $_POST, $_REQUEST, $_SERVER, $_COOKIE access without sanitisation. Every access must go through a sanitisation function. |
| Missing sanitisation functions | User input stored without sanitize_text_field(), absint(), sanitize_email(), sanitize_url(), wp_kses(), wp_kses_post(), etc. |
| Validation vs sanitisation | Validation (checking against allowed values) is preferred over sanitisation (modifying data). Use in_array() safelisting for enumerated options. |
filter_input() misuse |
FILTER_VALIDATE_URL alone allows javascript: URLs. Must also verify protocol safety. |
| Type coercion | Expecting integers but not using absint() or intval(). Expecting booleans but accepting truthy strings. |
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.
- yesterday First seen · 181 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A 18ec1e94e7f0
wp-security is an agent published in the GitHub repository stuartshields/claude-setup (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 2,885 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Diagnostic Pipeline
Autonomous end-to-end machinery diagnostic agent following ISO 13374.
Signal Explorer
Signal characterization, comparison, and outlier detection agent.
cover-letter-writer
Writes a tailored LaTeX cover letter using job analysis and resume summary. Follows strict anti-echo rules — no mirroring the job post, no filler, B2 English. Saves saifcoverletter.tex to the output folder.
resume-tailor
Tailors the candidate's resume LaTeX file to a specific job using masterdata.yaml and job analysis output. Selects relevant bullets, reorders skills, and weaves in ATS keywords. Saves saifresume.tex to the output folder.
api-analyzer
MUST BE USED for API analysis. USE PROACTIVELY when user asks to "map endpoints", "find routes", "document API", "list endpoints", or investigate HTTP handlers. Works across frameworks (Express, FastAPI, Django, Spring, Go).
performance-analyzer
MUST BE USED for code performance issues. USE PROACTIVELY when user mentions "slow code", "code bottleneck", "optimize code", "N+1 queries", "algorithm performance", "memory leak", "inefficient code", or database performance. Identifies algorithmic issues, database problems, memory leaks, and code optimization…