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/travisjneuman/.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/travisjneuman/.claude/security-scan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/travisjneuman/.claude/security-scan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/travisjneuman/.claude/security-scan/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/travisjneuman/.claude/security-scan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/travisjneuman/.claude/security-scan.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 | $0.00006 | $0.01330 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00532 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00266 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00133 |
Grade A, and why
security-scan 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 25d 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 — 185 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Security Scan
Runs a comprehensive security audit covering dependency vulnerabilities, code patterns, and secret detection.
Execution Flow
Step 1: Detect Project Type
[ -f "package.json" ] && echo "NODE"
[ -f "requirements.txt" ] || [ -f "pyproject.toml" ] && echo "PYTHON"
[ -f "go.mod" ] && echo "GO"
[ -f "Cargo.toml" ] && echo "RUST"
[ -f "Gemfile" ] && echo "RUBY"
Step 2: Run Scans by Scope
Scope: {{scope}} (default: all)
deps - Dependency Vulnerabilities
# Node.js
npm audit --json 2>/dev/null
# Python
pip audit 2>/dev/null || safety check 2>/dev/null
# Go
govulncheck ./... 2>/dev/null
# Rust
cargo audit 2>/dev/null
Report format:
Dependency Vulnerabilities
--------------------------
CRITICAL (2):
- [email protected] - Prototype Pollution (CVE-2021-23337)
Fix: npm install [email protected]
- [email protected] - Open Redirect (CVE-2024-XXXX)
Fix: npm install [email protected]
HIGH (1):
- [email protected] - Algorithm Confusion (CVE-2022-23529)
Fix: npm install [email protected]
MODERATE (3):
...
code - Code Pattern Analysis
Scan source code for common vulnerability patterns using the Grep tool:
Injection Vulnerabilities:
- SQL Injection: string concatenation or template literals in database queries
- XSS: use of innerHTML, unsafe HTML rendering in frameworks, v-html directives
- Command Injection: spawning shell processes with unsanitized user input, subprocess with shell=True, unsafe system calls
Authentication Issues:
- Hardcoded credentials: password/secret string literal assignments in source
- Weak crypto: usage of md5 or sha1 for security-sensitive operations
- Insecure randomness: Math.random used for tokens or secrets
- Missing auth decorators: public route annotations on sensitive endpoints
Data Exposure:
- Sensitive data in logs: password/token/secret in logging calls
- CORS misconfiguration: wildcard origins, overly permissive CORS settings
- Missing security headers: no Content-Security-Policy, no X-Frame-Options
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.
- 25d ago Changed · +2 lines 1ad11309b17d
- 1mo ago First seen · 183 lines · 6 tokens per session scan A 96490825fa2a
security-scan is a command published in the GitHub repository travisjneuman/.claude (106 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 6 tokens to every session and 1,330 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
ops-monitoring
Code instrumentation for monitoring/logging/alerting and deploying the observability stack.
dev-error-handling
Implements a robust and consistent error handling strategy.
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.