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/WYRE-AI/msp-claude-pluginsWrote 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/wyre-ai/msp-claude-plugins/phishing-results)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/wyre-ai/msp-claude-plugins/phishing-results"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/wyre-ai/msp-claude-plugins/phishing-results/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/wyre-ai/msp-claude-plugins/phishing-results"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/wyre-ai/msp-claude-plugins/phishing-results.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 | $0.00013 | $0.00910 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00364 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00182 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00091 |
Grade A, and why
phishing-results 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 2mo 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 — 115 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Phishing Results
Cross-vendor phishing-simulation results report: click-rate trend and named repeat clickers over the given window, pulled from whatever phishing-simulation platform the org has connected, with optional correlation against real-world click signal from a connected email-security tool where available.
Prerequisites
- Conduit gateway connected (
conduit) with at least one phishing-simulation connector. Without one, there is no simulation data to report.
Steps
-
Discover available tools. Call
conduit__search_toolsto determine which phishing-simulation connector is live and its actual tool names (e.g.knowbe4__list_campaigns). Also check for a connected email-security tool with phishing-adjacent signal (proofpoint__list_vap_users,avanan__list_threats) as optional enrichment — never assume it's present. -
Resolve the window. Parse
window(default90dif omitted). Accept shorthand like30d,90d,180d. Pull all campaigns whose run date falls within the window. -
Compute click-rate trend across the campaigns in the window, ordered chronologically, per the
phishing-simulation-analysisskill. Label trend direction as Improving / Flat / Worsening, or "insufficient history" if fewer than 3 campaigns fall within the window. -
Identify repeat clickers — users with 2+ failures within the window — sorted by failure count then recency. Cross-reference remedial-training completion for each.
-
Correlate with real-world signal where available. If an email-security tool with phishing-adjacent data is connected, check each repeat clicker for a matching real-world finding and flag any match as a compounding risk signal. If not connected, note explicitly that this enrichment wasn't performed.
Arguments
window(optional; default:90d) — Time window for the phishing-results report, e.g.30d,90d,180d.
Examples
Default 90-day window
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 115 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A 79795867ed08
phishing-results is a command published in the GitHub repository WYRE-AI/msp-claude-plugins (52 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 910 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-04.
phishing-results compared with commands from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| phishing-resultsWYRE-AI/msp-claude-plugins | Command | 52 | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 13 | Claude Code |
| checklistgithub/spec-kit | Command | 148k | yesterday | MIT | A | 13 | Claude Code |
| clarifygithub/spec-kit | Command | 148k | yesterday | MIT | A | 27 | Claude Code |
| specifygithub/spec-kit | Command | 148k | yesterday | MIT | A | 13 | Claude Code |
| analyzegithub/spec-kit | Command | 148k | yesterday | MIT | A | 26 | Claude Code |
| convergegithub/spec-kit | Command | 148k | yesterday | MIT | A | 35 | Claude Code |
| implementgithub/spec-kit | Command | 148k | yesterday | MIT | A | 14 | Claude Code |