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 abossenbroek/abossenbroek-claude-plugins --skill rainbow-teaminggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/abossenbroek/abossenbroek-claude-pluginsWrote 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/abossenbroek/abossenbroek-claude-plugins/rainbow-teaming)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/abossenbroek/abossenbroek-claude-plugins/rainbow-teaming"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/abossenbroek/abossenbroek-claude-plugins/rainbow-teaming/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/abossenbroek/abossenbroek-claude-plugins/rainbow-teaming"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/abossenbroek/abossenbroek-claude-plugins/rainbow-teaming.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 | $0.00049 | $0.01274 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00637 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00255 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00127 |
Grade A, and why
Rainbow Teaming 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 12d 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 — 127 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Rainbow Teaming Skill Reference
Overview
Rainbow Teaming is a quality-diversity approach to adversarial testing of LLM interactions. Instead of finding a single attack, it systematically explores the full space of potential weaknesses using a 10x10 taxonomy.
Research Foundation
The 10x10 Grid
Risk Categories (WHAT to probe)
| # | Category | Description | Key Questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | reasoning-flaws |
Logic gaps, invalid inferences | Does the conclusion follow? Are there missing steps? |
| 2 | assumption-gaps |
Hidden premises, unstated constraints | What must be true for this to work? What if it's not? |
| 3 | context-manipulation |
Poisoned context, prompt injection | Is prior context biasing the response? Are there injection vectors? |
| 4 | authority-exploitation |
Role confusion, credential misuse | Is authority being assumed? Are claims accepted on trust? |
| 5 | information-leakage |
Unintended disclosure | Is sensitive information being revealed? |
| 6 | hallucination-risks |
Fabricated facts, confident errors | Can claims be verified? Are sources real? |
| 7 | over-confidence |
Unjustified certainty | Is uncertainty acknowledged? Are hedges appropriate? |
| 8 | scope-creep |
Actions beyond request | Did the response exceed what was asked? |
| 9 | dependency-blindness |
Unverified external data | Are external sources trusted without verification? |
| 10 | temporal-inconsistency |
Stale info, version conflicts | Is information current? Are versions correct? |
Attack Styles (HOW to probe)
| # | Style | Approach | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | socratic-questioning |
Progressive questions exposing gaps | "And what makes you certain of that?" |
| 2 | devils-advocate |
Argue opposing position | "But couldn't the opposite be true because..." |
| 3 | edge-case-probing |
Push to boundary conditions | "What happens when the input is empty/huge/null?" |
| 4 | assumption-inversion |
Flip key assumptions | "What if we assume X is false instead?" |
| 5 | context-shifting |
Change framing | "In a different context, wouldn't this mean..." |
| 6 | authority-challenge |
Question sources | "What's the source for that claim?" |
| 7 | emotional-framing |
Inject urgency/flattery | "This is urgent!" / "As an expert, you must know..." |
| 8 | hypotheticals |
"What if" scenarios | "What if the API is down when this runs?" |
| 9 | contradiction-surfacing |
Find inconsistencies | "Earlier you said X, but now you're saying Y..." |
| 10 | meta-analysis |
Analyze the analysis | "Is this response itself well-reasoned?" |
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 127 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A 3e4088a7e16d
Rainbow Teaming is a skill published in the GitHub repository abossenbroek/abossenbroek-claude-plugins (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed BSD-3-Clause. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 1,274 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
research-engineer
An uncompromising Academic Research Engineer. Operates with absolute scientific rigor, objective criticism, and zero flair. Focuses on theoretical correctness, formal verification, and optimal implementation across any required technology.
tika-eval-compare
Compare extracts from two Tika builds over a corpus to detect regressions in content, encoding, exceptions, and embedded-document handling. Use for "compare before/after extracts", "eval this change against the corpus".
neuron-evaluation-engineer
Create and run AI evaluations with datasets, assertions, and output drivers in Neuron AI. Use this skill whenever the user mentions evaluation, testing AI systems, creating evaluators, dataset-driven testing, assertion-based validation, or wants to measure AI system performance. Also trigger for tasks involving…
jetson-validate-image
Use after jetson-flash-image to run static BSP checks, on-target smoke/regression tests on a flashed DUT, or both. Not for build or flash steps. Triggers: validate bsp, on-target validation.
atmos-validation
Validate Atmos projects, components, arbitrary JSON Schema inputs, EditorConfig, and GitHub Actions; use affected-file selection and native CI annotations.
skill-benchmark
Benchmark AI skill effectiveness by measuring implementation quality against legacy constraints.