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/Zyrexnn/CybermesWrote 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/zyrexnn/cybermes/validate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/zyrexnn/cybermes/validate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zyrexnn/cybermes/validate/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/zyrexnn/cybermes/validate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zyrexnn/cybermes/validate.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 | $0.00991 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00396 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00198 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00099 |
Grade A, and why
validate 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to validate — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 135 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
name: validate description: Validate a finding — runs 7-Question Gate + 4-gate checklist. Kills weak findings before report writing. Prevents N/A submissions that hurt validity ratio. Usage: /validate
/validate
Run full validation on the current finding before writing a report.
What This Does
- Runs 7-Question Gate (one wrong answer = kill it)
- Checks against the always-rejected list
- Runs 4 pre-submission gates
- Outputs: PASS (write the report) or KILL (move on)
Usage
/validate
Describe the finding when prompted. Include:
- The endpoint
- The bug class
- What the PoC shows
- The target program
The 7-Question Gate
Answer each. ONE wrong answer = STOP.
Q1: Can I demonstrate this step-by-step RIGHT NOW?
Write this out:
1. Setup: I need [own account / another user's ID / no account]
2. Request: [exact HTTP method, URL, headers, body]
3. Result: Response shows [exact data / action completed]
4. Impact: Real consequence is [account takeover / PII exposed / money stolen]
5. Cost: Time: [X min], Capital: [$0 / $X]
If step 2 is "I need to look at the code more" → KILL IT.
Q2: Is the impact accepted by this program?
Check program scope page. Is your bug class listed? Is it excluded?
Q3: Is the vulnerable asset in scope?
Exact domain in scope? Not staging/dev? Not a third-party service?
Q4: Does it need admin or privileged access that an attacker can't get?
"Admin can do X" → KILL IT. "Regular user can do X that only admin should" → valid.
Q5: Is this known or documented behavior?
Search disclosed reports + changelog + API docs.
Q6: Can you prove impact beyond "technically possible"?
- XSS → actual cookie value in exfil request, not just alert()
- SSRF → response body from internal service, not just DNS callback
- IDOR → actual other-user's private data in response, not just 200 status
Q7: Is this on the never-submit list?
Missing headers, GraphQL introspection alone, clickjacking without PoC,
self-XSS, open redirect alone, SSRF DNS-only, logout CSRF, banner disclosure,
rate limit on non-critical forms, missing cookie flags alone...
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 · 135 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 25e79666e957
validate is a command published in the GitHub repository Zyrexnn/Cybermes (668 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 991 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to validate, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
sicario.assess
Assess the repository against SicarioSpec guardrails.
sicario.review
Review the active spec, plan, tasks, staged changes, or branch for security and governance gaps.
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.