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/HermeticOrmus/LibreSecOps-Claude-CodeWrote 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/hermeticormus/libresecops-claude-code/incident-response)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/hermeticormus/libresecops-claude-code/incident-response"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hermeticormus/libresecops-claude-code/incident-response/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/hermeticormus/libresecops-claude-code/incident-response"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hermeticormus/libresecops-claude-code/incident-response.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 | $0.00027 | $0.01105 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00442 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00221 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00111 |
Grade A, and why
incident-response 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 12d 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 — 133 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/incident-response
Activate an incident response playbook for a reported security event, guiding through triage, containment, and initial response.
Trigger
Use this command when:
- A security alert fires from monitoring/SIEM
- Suspicious activity is reported by a user or team member
- A vulnerability is discovered to be actively exploited
- A third party notifies you of a breach involving your systems
- Automated detection systems flag anomalous behavior
Input
Required:
- Indicator: What was observed (alert details, user report, suspicious behavior)
Optional:
- Affected system(s): What systems or services are involved
- Time of observation: When the indicator was first noticed
- Actions already taken: Any steps already performed
- Incident type hint:
malware,breach,account-compromise,ddos,ransomware,insider,supply-chain,phishing
Process
Step 1: Triage
- Validate the alert: Is this a real incident or a false positive? Check for known benign causes.
- Classify the incident type: Match indicators to incident categories
- Assess scope: How many systems/users are affected? Is it contained or spreading?
- Determine severity: Using the severity matrix:
| Severity | Criteria |
|---|---|
| SEV1 - Critical | Active data exfiltration, ransomware deployment, complete service outage, safety risk |
| SEV2 - High | Confirmed compromise, active attacker presence, significant service degradation |
| SEV3 - Medium | Suspected compromise, potential data exposure, partial service impact |
| SEV4 - Low | Security event, policy violation, no confirmed compromise |
- Activate the appropriate playbook: Select from IR Playbooks skill based on incident type
Step 2: Initial Response
- Assign roles: Incident Commander, Technical Lead, Communications Lead, Scribe
- Open communications channel: Dedicated Slack channel, war room, or bridge call
- Start the timeline: Document everything with UTC timestamps from this point forward
- Notify stakeholders: Based on severity level:
- SEV1: CISO, CTO, Legal, PR, all affected team leads
- SEV2: Security leadership, affected team leads
- SEV3: Security team lead
- SEV4: Logged, monitored
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.
- 12d ago Changed · +5 lines · +27 tokens per session e30449510453
- 1mo ago First seen · 128 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A e32056866ee8
incident-response is a command published in the GitHub repository HermeticOrmus/LibreSecOps-Claude-Code (4 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 1,105 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
verify
An independent recheck of a security assessment report that derives conclusions from its own evidence instead of accepting the original findings.
corporate-launcher
Build a secure, branded, organization-specific launcher around an AI coding CLI (Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, Cursor, or Cline) so the user can.
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.