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/stackhawk/agent-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/stackhawk/agent-skills/stackhawk-hawkscan-false-positives)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/stackhawk/agent-skills/stackhawk-hawkscan-false-positives"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/stackhawk/agent-skills/stackhawk-hawkscan-false-positives/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/stackhawk/agent-skills/stackhawk-hawkscan-false-positives"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/stackhawk/agent-skills/stackhawk-hawkscan-false-positives.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 | $0.00031 | $0.02262 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00905 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00452 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00226 |
Grade A, and why
stackhawk-hawkscan-false-positives 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 251 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
False Positives and Accepted Risk
Contents
- Identifying False Positives
- How to Decide: Fix or Suppress?
- Suppression via Config
- Triaging via the API
- Reporting Accepted Risk
- When in Doubt
Identifying False Positives
Not every finding from a DAST scan is a real vulnerability. Some common false positive scenarios:
- Health check or status endpoints that intentionally return server info (e.g.,
/health,/actuator/info) may trigger "Information Disclosure" findings - CORS headers set intentionally permissive for public APIs
- Deliberately open endpoints (public API docs, login pages) flagged for missing authentication
- Security headers on non-HTML responses — CSP, X-Frame-Options findings on JSON API endpoints that never serve HTML
- Rate limiting findings on endpoints that are already behind an API gateway enforcing rate limits
How to Decide: Fix or Suppress?
| Signal | Action |
|---|---|
| The finding describes real user-input handling with no sanitization | Fix it |
| The finding is on a test/mock endpoint not present in production | Suppress — exclude the path |
| The finding is on an intentionally open endpoint (health, docs) | Suppress — exclude the path |
| The finding is a header issue on a non-HTML API response | Suppress — exclude the path or accept the risk |
| You're unsure | Fix it — false negatives are worse than false positives |
Suppression via Config
Exclude specific paths from scanning
The scanner is pinned to the host: value in stackhawk.yml and will not
traverse to other hosts. You do not need to add external domains or CDN
URLs to excludePaths — the scanner won't follow them.
Use excludePaths for same-host paths that generate noise without security
value: static assets (images, CSS, JavaScript bundles), health endpoints,
API docs, and similar paths that are either not user-controllable or not
relevant to security testing.
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 · 251 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A e568843e3f29
stackhawk-hawkscan-false-positives is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository stackhawk/agent-skills (16 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 2,262 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 2026-08-30.
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.
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.
config-validation-and-normalization
Config validation and normalization responsibilities (defineConfig normalizes, the orm section schema validates and resolves paths, the loader reports per-section diagnostics).