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/hypnguyen1209/offensive-claudeWrote 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/hypnguyen1209/offensive-claude/engage.crash)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/hypnguyen1209/offensive-claude/engage.crash"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hypnguyen1209/offensive-claude/engage.crash/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/hypnguyen1209/offensive-claude/engage.crash"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hypnguyen1209/offensive-claude/engage.crash.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 | $0.00016 | $0.00948 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00474 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00190 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00095 |
Grade A, and why
engage.crash 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 10d 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 — 66 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/engage.crash
Takes a crash (or a fuzzing corpus) for a native target and produces a validated root cause plus a
machine-checkable exploitability verdict — the crash→exploitability pipeline (raptor-adoption PR-3). It
sequences the rr/coverage/feasibility skills under the engagement's scope and action gates. Runs in the
binary-analysis devcontainer (.devcontainer/); the rr/gcov/compile steps need a Linux toolchain and
degrade gracefully (skip with a notice) where a tool is absent.
Usage
/engage.crash --target <binary> [--input <poc>] [--source <dir>] [--build "<gcc {cflags} cmd>"]
Process
1. Scope + safety (always first)
scope_guard.py check <target>— reproduction/exec only inside authorization.- Reproduction and witness replay are analysis, but any exec is routed through
action_guard.py; this command never auto-runs an exploit PoC (that stays behind the gate).
2. Reproduce + root cause (rr time-travel)
skills/reverse-engineering/scripts/rr_root_cause.sh <target> @@(CRASH_INPUT=) — deterministic record/replay; reverse-step to the corrupting write. Seeskills/reverse-engineering/references/rr-time-travel.md.- Output: a
trace_proofartifact (function trace) + a root-cause summary.
3. Prove reachability (coverage)
- If source is available, build
--coverage, run the witness,gcovthe vulnerable line — seeskills/reverse-engineering/references/coverage-reachability.md. Output: acoverage_proof(gcov line-hit). - Either artifact satisfies the native-bug reachability bar in
validate_findings.py.
4. Empirical feasibility (mitigation matrix)
exploit_context.py build --target <binary>— cache checksec/libc/arch once.feasibility_profile.py run --build "<gcc {cflags} ...>" --witness "<./w poc>" --context exploit-context.json— rebuild the witness under permissive/distro/hardened/asan, record which still fire, derive the blocked-technique map. Seeskills/exploit-development/references/exploit-feasibility.md.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 66 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A c4111ed74f0b
engage.crash is a command published in the GitHub repository hypnguyen1209/offensive-claude (357 stars, last pushed 24d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 948 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
crystallize
Promote extracted incident knowledge into global patterns and agent improvements.
techdebt
Find and report technical debt in the codebase.
audit
Audit an existing codebase. Detects stack, finds gaps, creates tasks, generates PROJECT.md.
fec-tdd
Use front-end TDD workflow to implement functions, fix bugs, or refactor logic: first write failing tests, then implement minimal code, and then refactor.
dead-code-scan
Scan for dead code, unused imports, duplicates, and zombie code across the project.
esp-debug
Help debug ESP32 crashes, hangs, and peripheral issues.