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 | $0.01240 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00620 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00248 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00124 |
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 6d 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 — 183 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.
- 6d ago First seen · 183 lines · 6 tokens per session scan A 96490825fa2a
security-scan is a command published in the GitHub repository travisjneuman/.claude (97 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 6 tokens to every session and 1,240 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
api-gen
Generate REST API endpoints with routes, validation, error handling, and tests.
component-gen
Generate React or Vue components with prop types, styling, accessibility, and tests.
performance-audit
Find performance bottlenecks across the stack — queries, rendering, bundle size, memory.
debug
Systematic debugging — reproduce, isolate, fix, verify, and add regression test.
doc-gen
Generate documentation — JSDoc, docstrings, README sections, or API docs.
migrate
Migrate between framework versions or languages with an audited step-by-step plan.