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/hamr0/agentic-toolkitWrote 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/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/security)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/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/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/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 | $0.00012 | $0.01926 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00770 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00385 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00193 |
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 20d 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 — 116 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Audit $ARGUMENTS for security vulnerabilities. Reports, never edits — it verifies every claim, then hands the findings to whoever asked.
Runs identically standalone or as stage 2 of /branch-review. The only
difference is where the report goes: to the orchestrator when called as a
stage, to you when you run it directly. Same checks, same verify pass, same
escalation. It does not spawn a worker of its own — run it inline; when
/branch-review calls it, it is already inside that command's worker.
Adapt scope to what the target actually is — a library, CLI, web app, and service won't all have every category. Skip what genuinely doesn't apply; never invent findings to fill a section.
The recurring six (check every project, where applicable)
These show up in nearly every quickly-built app regardless of stack:
- Secrets in the repo. Tokens / API keys /
.envfiles committed to tracked files or anywhere in git history. Verify.envis gitignored and only a value-less.env.exampleis tracked. Scan ALL history, every branch — a range or target never narrows this — with:git log --all -p | grep -nE '(sk-[A-Za-z0-9_-]{16,}|AKIA[0-9A-Z]{16}|gh[pousr]_[A-Za-z0-9]{30,}|xox[abprs]-[A-Za-z0-9-]{10,}|AIza[0-9A-Za-z_-]{35}|-----BEGIN [A-Z ]*PRIVATE KEY)'plus any key shape specific to this project's providers. Report each hit as real or a known test fixture. Secrets must load from env / a secret store at runtime — never hardcoded, never logged. - Data-access authorization (tenant isolation). Every record read or written must be scoped to the requesting principal — via DB-level rules (RLS / row policies) and/or application-layer ownership checks. Flag any query that trusts a client-supplied id without an ownership or role gate, and any table/collection with a policy that's too broad or missing.
- Rate limiting. Every externally reachable endpoint and abuse-prone inbound path is bounded — including authenticated mutation/write routes, not just the obvious public GETs. Note any unbounded route.
- Error handling past the happy path. Third-party / IO / DB failures are caught; nothing fails silently; no internal detail (stack traces, queries, secrets) leaks to the client. Background/async work has its own catch.
- Authorization beyond authentication (IDOR / privilege). "Logged in" is not "allowed to do this". Confirm ownership AND role/permission checks on every state-changing or privileged action. Mentally swap an id in a request — does it return 403, or does it leak/modify another user's data?
- Inefficient data access (N+1 / unindexed). Queries inside loops, per-render repeated calls, missing indexes on filtered/joined columns. Correct but falls over under load — a real availability risk.
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.
- 20d ago Changed · +13 lines fcbc9ba7884a
- 1mo ago Changed · +3 lines eaa284ca9cd4
- 1mo ago Changed · -3 lines · -2 tokens per session 54dfcbe398b5
- 1mo ago First seen · 103 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 8aed4fa927ab
security is a command published in the GitHub repository hamr0/agentic-toolkit (22 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 1,926 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 commands, from other repositories
agent-workflow
Automated multi-agent development workflow with quality gates from idea to production code.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.