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.
npx skills add 0dayInc/pwn --skill verificationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/0dayInc/pwnWrote 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/skills/0dayinc/pwn/verification)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/0dayinc/pwn/verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/0dayinc/pwn/verification/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/skills/0dayinc/pwn/verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/0dayinc/pwn/verification.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 | $0.00021 | $0.00271 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00135 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00054 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00027 |
Grade A, and why
pwn-ai-agent-verification 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 3d 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.
What it actually says
PWN::AI::Agent::Verification
Explicit host-owned acceptance checks, not a model-facing tool.
When to use
Call PWN::AI::Agent::Verification from pwn_eval when the task needs this module.
Do not reimplement it in shell.
Methodologies
Generated from pwn/ai/agent/verification.rb. Prefer the public class methods below.
Class methods take (opts = {}) and read opts.
How to call
PWN::AI::Agent::Verification.help
PWN::AI::Agent::Verification.run(opts)
Public methods
runsnapshotauthorshelp
Source
pwn/ai/agent/verification.rb
Verification
PWN::AI::Agent::Verification.respond_to?(:run) after the
module is loaded. Read the source for parameter names.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 49 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A a348f8a8112d
pwn-ai-agent-verification is a skill published in the GitHub repository 0dayInc/pwn (82 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 271 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-08.
Other skills, from other repositories
race
Race condition / TOCTOU playbook — limit overrun (one-time codes used twice, gift cards spent twice), single-packet attack (last-byte sync) to force parallel processing, and state-confusion races (file upload + read, order before payment). Use when timing-sensitive logic could be abused — one-time codes, coupons/gift…
exploiting-insecure-deserialization
Identifying and exploiting insecure deserialization vulnerabilities in Java, PHP, Python, and .NET applications to achieve remote code execution during authorized penetration tests.
testing-for-business-logic-vulnerabilities
Identifying flaws in application business logic that allow price manipulation, workflow bypass, and privilege escalation beyond what technical vulnerability scanners can detect.
testing-for-sensitive-data-exposure
Identifying sensitive data exposure vulnerabilities including API key leakage, PII in responses, insecure storage, and unprotected data transmission during security assessments.
owasp-top-10-testing
Test an application against the OWASP Top 10 with Strix — autonomous AI agents that attempt real exploits for each category of the current OWASP Top 10:2025 (broken access control including SSRF, security misconfiguration, software supply chain failures, cryptographic failures, injection, insecure design…
application-security-testing
Application security testing (AppSec) across a whole product with Strix — decide which asset needs which test (source code, running web app, API, CI pipeline), run it, and turn the results into a ranked remediation plan. Autonomous agents exploit and prove each issue instead of emitting static-analysis alerts, so the…