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/briiirussell/cybersecurity-skillsWrote 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/rules/briiirussell/cybersecurity-skills/finding-triage)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/briiirussell/cybersecurity-skills/finding-triage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/briiirussell/cybersecurity-skills/finding-triage/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/rules/briiirussell/cybersecurity-skills/finding-triage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/briiirussell/cybersecurity-skills/finding-triage.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 | $0.00118 | $0.02725 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00059 | $0.01362 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00545 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00272 |
Grade A, and why
finding-triage 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 10d 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 — 259 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Finding Triage — Single-Finding Disposition with Defensible Justification
Every other skill in this repo generates findings. This skill closes the loop — for a single finding, walk through whether it's real, what severity it deserves in your context, and what to do about it. Output is a complete ticket-ready writeup with the right fields, the right justification, and an audit trail that survives a regulator reading it six months later.
The dispositions match owasp-audit's Three-Disposition rule: Fixed, Deferred, or Accepted Risk. False positive is a fourth — but it isn't a disposition for a real finding, it's a determination that there is no finding.
This skill works on findings from any source: SAST output, DAST scanner, dependency advisory, manual audit, threat-hunt hit, pentest report, vendor disclosure, internal red-team writeup, bug bounty submission.
Cross-references:
vuln-researchfor the technical CVE deep-dive that feeds reachability assessment hereowasp-auditThree-Disposition rule (the framework this implements per-finding)security-commsfor translating the disposition writeup into stakeholder-readable language when the finding has to leave the security context- Any audit skill — this consumes their findings as input
Workflow
The agent works through these steps with the user. Stop and ask clarifying questions where the user has context the finding alone doesn't reveal.
Step 1 — Restate the finding in your own words
If the finding came from a scanner, restate what's actually being claimed. Scanners produce noise; restating filters out the boilerplate.
A good restatement names:
- What the issue is (specific weakness — CWE if applicable)
- Where it lives (file:line, endpoint, resource ARN, host)
- How it could be exploited (preconditions, attacker capability needed)
- Impact if it were exploited (data loss, privilege escalation, availability)
If you can't restate it clearly, you don't understand it yet. Ask the user for context.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 259 lines · 118 tokens per session scan A 3a1e77ad105f
finding-triage is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository briiirussell/cybersecurity-skills (384 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 118 tokens to every session and 2,725 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-30.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
ponytail
Ponytail, lazy senior dev mode. Always pick the simplest solution that works.
angular-20
This rule provides comprehensive best practices and coding standards for Angular development, focusing on modern TypeScript, standalone components, signals, and performance optimizations.
dev-standard
Apache Superset development standards and guidelines for Cursor IDE.
cli-error-handling
CLI command error handling patterns.
prefer-assertions-over-defensive-checks
Prefer assertions over defensive checks when data is guaranteed to be valid.
prefer-direct-imports-over-module-mocks
Prefer extracting a testable core over vi.mock / vi.resetModules when unit tests need to reach production logic entangled with config, env, or singletons.