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.weaponize)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/hypnguyen1209/offensive-claude/engage.weaponize"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hypnguyen1209/offensive-claude/engage.weaponize/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.weaponize"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hypnguyen1209/offensive-claude/engage.weaponize.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 | $0.00010 | $0.01118 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00559 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00224 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00112 |
Grade A, and why
engage.weaponize 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 9d 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 — 165 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/engage.weaponize
Executes Phase 2 (Weaponization) of the engagement workflow.
Usage
/engage.weaponize [--target <vulnerability>] [--payload-type <type>]
Options:
--target: Specify target vulnerability (CVE or description)--payload-type: Specify payload type (shell, implant, exploit)
Process
1. Load Templates
Loads:
weaponize/exploit-blueprint.md— Exploit design documentweaponize/payload-config.md— Payload configuration
2. Target Selection
Reviews reconnaissance output and prompts:
- Which vulnerability or weakness to target?
- What is the exploitation goal? (initial access, privilege escalation, lateral movement)
- What are the target constraints? (OS, architecture, mitigations)
3. Exploit Design
Populates exploit-blueprint.md with:
Vulnerability Analysis:
- CVE/CWE identification
- Vulnerability type (RCE, SQLi, XSS, etc.)
- Affected versions
- Public exploits available?
Exploitation Strategy:
- Attack vector (network, web, client-side)
- Exploitation technique
- Mitigation bypass requirements (ASLR, DEP, CFG, SMEP/SMAP)
- Reliability assessment
Payload Requirements:
- Payload type (reverse shell, bind shell, implant, dropper)
- Encoding/obfuscation needs
- Size constraints
- Persistence requirements
4. Payload Configuration
Populates payload-config.md with:
Payload Specifications:
- Payload format (ELF, PE, shellcode, script)
- Architecture (x86, x64, ARM)
- Delivery method (staged, stageless)
C2 Configuration:
- Callback IP/domain
- Callback port and protocol
- Encryption/encoding
- Beacon interval
Evasion Techniques:
- AV/EDR evasion methods
- Obfuscation techniques
- AMSI bypass (if Windows PowerShell)
- ETW patching (if Windows)
OPSEC Considerations:
- Attribution concerns
- Network indicators
- Host artifacts
- Cleanup requirements
5. Payload Development
Offers to invoke relevant skills:
03-exploit-development— PoC and payload crafting17-edr-evasion— AV/EDR bypass techniques19-shellcode-dev— Shellcode development20-windows-mitigations— Mitigation bypass (ASLR/DEP/CFG)
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 165 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A e359d58f9e32
engage.weaponize is a command published in the GitHub repository hypnguyen1209/offensive-claude (357 stars, last pushed 22d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 1,118 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
discover
Run a full product discovery cycle — from outcome definition through opportunity mapping, prioritisation, and experiment design. Use when the team isn't sure what to build next, or before writing a PRD for a complex feature space.
voice-compliance
Voice/telephony compliance check — invokes voice-ai-reviewer to produce TM-voice-{slug}.md with TCPA, STIR/SHAKEN, state recording-consent, EU AI Act Art. 50, and synth-voice deepfake-law gaps.
claude-tracker
List recent Claude Code sessions with live status.
qa
Smoke or browser-walk a running app. Report only. Do not implement. Do not merge.
esp-harden
Harden and inspect ESP32 firmware for field failures, crashes, memory, and security.
replication-package
Scaffold or audit a social-science replication package at a target directory, and audit the manuscript and its archived research objects against FAIR principles.