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 agentmods add skills/2233admin/reverse-skill-evolver/competition-mailbox-abusenpx skills add 2233admin/reverse-skill-evolver --skill competition-mailbox-abusegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/2233admin/reverse-skill-evolverWrote 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/2233admin/reverse-skill-evolver/competition-mailbox-abuse)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/2233admin/reverse-skill-evolver/competition-mailbox-abuse"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/2233admin/reverse-skill-evolver/competition-mailbox-abuse.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00119 | $0.00672 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00060 | $0.00336 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00134 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00067 |
Grade A, and why
competition-mailbox-abuse 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 4d 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 competition-mailbox-abuse — 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 — 51 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Competition Mailbox Abuse
Use this skill only as a downstream specialization after $ctf-sandbox-orchestrator is already active and has established sandbox assumptions, node ownership, and evidence priorities. If that has not happened yet, return to $ctf-sandbox-orchestrator first.
Use this skill when the decisive path runs through mailbox behavior, consent flow, or message-routing effects rather than generic AD evidence alone.
Reply in Simplified Chinese unless the user explicitly requests English.
Quick Start
- Decide whether the active path is phishing-to-consent, token-to-mailbox, rule-based persistence, or transport-level mail rerouting.
- Keep mailbox evidence, identity evidence, and message-trace evidence tied to the same user, mailbox, token, or message ID.
- Separate possession of a token or delegate edge from the actual mailbox effect it enables.
- Record forwarding targets, rule predicates, consent scopes, shared mailbox edges, and resulting mail flow in compact blocks.
- Reproduce the smallest mail effect that proves persistence, exfiltration, or privilege.
Workflow
1. Map The Mail Trust Path
- Identify the principal, mailbox, token or session, consent grant, delegate edge, shared mailbox relationship, or app registration involved.
- Record consent scopes, mailbox permissions, rule ownership, transport actions, and message-trace identifiers.
- Distinguish client-visible symptoms from server-side mailbox or transport state.
2. Prove The Mailbox Effect
- Correlate consent logs, sign-ins, message traces, inbox rules, transport rules, forwarding settings, and mailbox audit events.
- Show which rule or token produces which concrete effect: silent forwarding, marking read, deletion, delegate access, or message rerouting.
- Keep message IDs, sender or recipient pairs, and timestamps aligned across logs.
3. Reduce To The Decisive Abuse Chain
- Compress the path to the smallest sequence: lure or grant -> token or delegate edge -> mailbox or transport mutation -> resulting mail effect.
- State clearly whether persistence lives in consent, mailbox rules, transport config, or shared mailbox permissions.
- If the task broadens into host pivots or Kerberos acceptance, switch back to the broader identity skill.
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 51 lines · 119 tokens per session scan A e83476c6a988
competition-mailbox-abuse is a skill published in the GitHub repository 2233admin/reverse-skill-evolver (13 stars, last pushed 24d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 119 tokens to every session and 672 once invoked, about $0.0006 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to competition-mailbox-abuse, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
auto-perf-optimize
Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.
chat-perf
Run chat perf benchmarks and memory leak checks against the local dev build or any published VS Code version. Use when investigating chat rendering regressions, validating perf-sensitive changes to chat UI, or checking for memory leaks in the chat response pipeline.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…