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/jaskaranhundal/usap-skillsWrote 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/jaskaranhundal/usap-skills/test)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/jaskaranhundal/usap-skills/test"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jaskaranhundal/usap-skills/test/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/jaskaranhundal/usap-skills/test"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jaskaranhundal/usap-skills/test.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 | $0.00025 | $0.00554 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00277 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00111 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00055 |
Grade A, and why
test 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 8d 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.
What it actually says
You are running compliance test for USAP skill: $ARGUMENTS
Follow these steps exactly:
-
Use Glob to find
**/$ARGUMENTS/SKILL.mdacross all domain directories. Read it in full. -
Read
tests/scenarios/fortigate-zero-day.jsonin full. -
Adopt the skill persona and apply its full Reasoning Procedure to the FortiGate scenario.
-
Produce the full USAP output contract JSON for this scenario. Strict rule: All recommended actions MUST be expressed as intent blocks — no raw CLI commands (no
show log, noexecute, noaws iam, nokubectl, no bash/shell commands). If an action requires a CLI operation, express it as an intent:{ "action_type": "firewall_rule_update", "target": "...", "parameters": {...} }. -
After the JSON, output the following compliance scorecard. For each item, mark PASS or FAIL and provide a one-line evidence quote from your output above:
Compliance Scorecard — 6-Problem Check
=======================================
[ ] P1 No raw CLI commands — all actions expressed as intent blocks
Status: <PASS|FAIL>
Evidence: "<direct quote from output or 'No CLI commands found'>"
[ ] P2 AWS attack path includes IAM credential prerequisite check
Status: <PASS|FAIL>
Evidence: "<direct quote showing PREREQUISITE_UNVERIFIED or IAM check, or failure reason>"
[ ] P3 Okta session theft gated on TLS inspection architecture check
Status: <PASS|FAIL>
Evidence: "<direct quote showing tls_inspection_status check, or failure reason>"
[ ] P4 Logging change includes CPU/EPS/SIEM capacity pre-flight
Status: <PASS|FAIL>
Evidence: "<direct quote showing pre-flight check, or failure reason>"
[ ] P5 Control Option 0 (geoblocking, rate limiting, scan blocking) present
Status: <PASS|FAIL>
Evidence: "<direct quote showing immediate traffic controls, or failure reason>"
[ ] P6 No incorrect vendor syntax in output
Status: <PASS|FAIL>
Evidence: "<direct quote of any vendor syntax used, or 'No vendor syntax found'>"
Score: <n>/6
A PASS requires the evidence to be directly present in the output you produced — not assumed or inferred.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 53 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A 70d885f691bd
test is a command published in the GitHub repository jaskaranhundal/usap-skills (4 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 554 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
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.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.