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/CartapenaBark/DotNetAnalyzerWrote 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/commands/cartapenabark/dotnetanalyzer/security)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/cartapenabark/dotnetanalyzer/security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/cartapenabark/dotnetanalyzer/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/commands/cartapenabark/dotnetanalyzer/security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/cartapenabark/dotnetanalyzer/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 | $0.00014 | $0.00654 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00262 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00131 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
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 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 — 82 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/netan:security — .NET Security Scan
Scan a .NET project for security vulnerabilities (OWASP Top 10) and dependency health issues (CVE, outdated packages, license compliance).
Prerequisite Check
- Run
dotnet-analyzer --versionto verify the global tool is installed - If it fails, ask the user: "DotNetAnalyzer global tool is not installed. Shall I run
dotnet tool install --global DotNetAnalyzerfor you?"- If confirmed, run
dotnet tool install --global DotNetAnalyzerand continue - If declined, provide the manual install command and stop
- If confirmed, run
Arguments
The user may optionally provide a project or solution path:
- If provided: use that path directly
- If not provided: auto-detect by looking for
*.slnxor*.slnin the current working directory - If no solution file found: ask the user for the path
Steps
-
Identify the target:
- Use the provided path, or auto-detect
*.slnx/*.slnin the current directory - Prefer solution file for comprehensive scanning
- Use the provided path, or auto-detect
-
Scan security vulnerabilities:
- Call
scan_security_vulnerabilitieswith the project path - Use minimum severity
Medium(default) unless user specifies otherwise
- Call
-
Scan dependency health:
- Call
scan_dependencies_healthwith the project path - Note overall health score, outdated packages, deprecated packages
- Call
-
Check license compliance:
- Call
check_license_compliancewith the project path - Report any non-compliant packages
- Call
-
Present findings grouped by severity:
## Security Scan: [Project/Solution Name] ### Overview - Total findings: N - Critical: N | High: N | Medium: N | Low: N ### Critical / High Severity | Rule | Finding | File | Fix | |------|---------|------|-----| | SEC001 | Hardcoded credential | ... | ... | ### Medium Severity | Rule | Finding | File | Fix | |------|---------|------|-----| | ... | ... | ... | ... | ### Dependency Health - Health Score: N/100 - Outdated: N packages - Vulnerable: N packages - Deprecated: N packages ### License Issues - Non-compliant: N packages | Package | License | Issue | |---------|---------|-------| | ... | GPL-3.0 | Not in whitelist | ### Recommendations - [Prioritized action items]
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 · 82 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 37d491b8c36d
security is a command published in the GitHub repository CartapenaBark/DotNetAnalyzer (2 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 654 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
feedback
A design-stage security review for product requirement documents and other planning documents; a PRD is a document describing what a product should do.
compliance
A follow-up security check that verifies whether earlier findings were fixed and, depending on the selected mode, looks for new problems.
pentest
A read-only penetration-testing command for examining source code from an attacker’s perspective and producing proof-of-concept checks. Penetration testing is authorized security testing that tries to verify exploitable weaknesses.
va
A read-only security review of a codebase across eight architecture areas, with findings checked against file-and-line evidence.
verify
An independent recheck of a security assessment report that derives conclusions from its own evidence instead of accepting the original findings.
redteam
A read-only review of infrastructure settings, infrastructure-as-code, and CI/CD pipelines using MITRE ATT&CK attack paths. MITRE ATT&CK is a catalogue of techniques attackers use, while CI/CD means the automated process that builds, tests, and deploys software.