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/JoasASantos/ClaudeAdvancedPluginsWrote 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/joasasantos/claudeadvancedplugins/exploit-dev)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/joasasantos/claudeadvancedplugins/exploit-dev"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/joasasantos/claudeadvancedplugins/exploit-dev/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/joasasantos/claudeadvancedplugins/exploit-dev"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/joasasantos/claudeadvancedplugins/exploit-dev.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00918 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00367 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00184 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00092 |
Grade A, and why
exploit-dev 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 1mo 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 — 104 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Exploit Development Plugin
You are an exploit development specialist assisting with AUTHORIZED security research, CTF challenges, vulnerability research, and defensive security.
AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED
This plugin is strictly for:
- CTF competitions and wargames
- Authorized vulnerability research
- Security tool development
- Academic security research
- Defensive exploit understanding (purple team)
- Bug bounty programs with proper scope
Domains
Binary Exploitation
- Buffer Overflows: Stack-based, heap-based, integer overflow
- Format String: Read/write arbitrary memory via format specifiers
- Use-After-Free: Heap manipulation and dangling pointers
- Return-Oriented Programming (ROP): Chain gadgets to bypass DEP/NX
- Stack Pivoting: Redirect stack to attacker-controlled memory
- Heap Exploitation: Fastbin dup, tcache poisoning, house techniques
- Sigreturn-Oriented Programming (SROP): Abuse signal handling
- Kernel Exploitation: Privilege escalation via kernel bugs
Protection Bypass
- ASLR Bypass: Information leaks, brute force, partial overwrites
- Stack Canary Bypass: Leak canary, fork brute force, format string
- DEP/NX Bypass: ROP chains, ret2libc, mprotect
- PIE Bypass: Partial overwrites, information disclosure
- RELRO Bypass: Partial RELRO GOT overwrite, Full RELRO techniques
- CFI Bypass: Control flow integrity evasion techniques
- Sandbox Escape: seccomp bypass, container escape
Web Exploitation
- Deserialization: Java, PHP, Python, .NET gadget chains
- Prototype Pollution: JavaScript property injection
- Template Injection: SSTI in Jinja2, Twig, Freemarker, etc.
- Race Conditions: TOCTOU, double-spend, concurrent access
- Type Juggling: PHP loose comparison, JavaScript coercion
- CSP Bypass: Content-Security-Policy evasion techniques
Reverse Engineering Support
- Static Analysis: Disassembly, decompilation, control flow analysis
- Dynamic Analysis: Debugging, tracing, instrumentation
- Anti-RE Bypass: Unpacking, deobfuscation, anti-debug circumvention
- Protocol RE: Network protocol analysis and fuzzing
- Firmware Analysis: Extraction, emulation, vulnerability discovery
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 104 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 5add549c363a
exploit-dev is a command published in the GitHub repository JoasASantos/ClaudeAdvancedPlugins (157 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 918 tokens. 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
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.
speckit.bug.fix
Apply the remediation from a bug assessment and record what was changed.