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 allsmog/vuln-scout --skill owasp-2025git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/allsmog/vuln-scoutWrote 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/allsmog/vuln-scout/owasp-2025)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/allsmog/vuln-scout/owasp-2025"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/allsmog/vuln-scout/owasp-2025/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/allsmog/vuln-scout/owasp-2025"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/allsmog/vuln-scout/owasp-2025.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 | $0.00056 | $0.01237 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00619 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00247 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00124 |
Grade A, and why
OWASP Category Mapping 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 — 192 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
OWASP Top 10 Reference
Purpose
Map VulnScout findings to official OWASP Top 10 category names, highlight what the plugin covers well, and keep reports aligned with widely recognized security terminology.
Reporting Rule
- Use official OWASP Top 10 names in user-facing reports.
- Treat the
owasp-2025directory name as a compatibility alias, not as proof of a future OWASP taxonomy. - Prefer CWE plus concrete vulnerability class when a finding does not fit cleanly into a single OWASP bucket.
Coverage Overview
| OWASP Top 10 | VulnScout Coverage | Primary Skills |
|---|---|---|
| A01: Broken Access Control | Strong | business-logic, threat-modeling |
| A02: Cryptographic Failures | Strong | cryptographic-failures |
| A03: Injection | Strong | vuln-patterns, dangerous-functions, framework-patterns |
| A04: Insecure Design | Strong | business-logic, threat-modeling |
| A05: Security Misconfiguration | Strong | security-misconfiguration, framework-patterns |
| A06: Vulnerable and Outdated Components | Out of scope | (dependency and SBOM tooling) |
| A07: Identification and Authentication Failures | Moderate | vuln-patterns, business-logic |
| A08: Software and Data Integrity Failures | Moderate | vuln-patterns, sensitive-data-leakage |
| A09: Security Logging and Monitoring Failures | Strong | logging-failures, sensitive-data-leakage |
| A10: Server-Side Request Forgery | Strong | vuln-patterns, framework-patterns, vulnerability-chains |
Mapping Guidance
A01: Broken Access Control
Use for:
- IDOR
- missing authorization checks
- role and tenant boundary bypasses
- unsafe direct access to user-controlled object identifiers
Common CWE anchors:
- CWE-284
- CWE-285
- CWE-639
- CWE-862
- CWE-863
A02: Cryptographic Failures
Use for:
- weak or obsolete algorithms
- hardcoded secrets
- insecure randomness
- missing encryption on sensitive data paths
Common CWE anchors:
- CWE-326
- CWE-327
- CWE-330
- CWE-338
- CWE-798
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 · 192 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A cca6a54db594
OWASP Category Mapping is a skill published in the GitHub repository allsmog/vuln-scout (24 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 1,237 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 skills, from other repositories
sast-config
Reviews and tunes SAST tool configurations against OWASP ASVS 4.0.3 and CWE Top 25. Auto-invoked when reviewing Semgrep rules, CodeQL queries, SAST CI integration, or false positive triage workflows. Produces a SAST maturity assessment covering rule authoring, severity tuning, custom rule development, and CI…
sast-semgrep
Static application security testing (SAST) using Semgrep for vulnerability detection, security code review, and secure coding guidance with OWASP and CWE framework mapping. Use when: (1) Scanning code for security vulnerabilities across multiple languages, (2) Performing security code reviews with pattern-based…
sast-semgrep
Static application security testing (SAST) using Semgrep for vulnerability detection, security code review, and secure coding guidance with OWASP and CWE framework mapping. Use when: (1) Scanning code for security vulnerabilities across multiple languages, (2) Performing security code reviews with pattern-based…
implementing-devsecops-security-scanning
Integrates Static Application Security Testing (SAST), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST), and Software Composition Analysis (SCA) into CI/CD pipelines using open-source tools. Covers Semgrep for SAST, Trivy for SCA and container scanning, OWASP ZAP for DAST, and Gitleaks for secrets detection. Activates for…
integrating-sast-into-github-actions-pipeline
This skill covers integrating Static Application Security Testing (SAST) tools—CodeQL and Semgrep—into GitHub Actions CI/CD pipelines. It addresses configuring automated code scanning on pull requests and pushes, tuning rules to reduce false positives, uploading SARIF results to GitHub Advanced Security, and…
implementing-semgrep-for-custom-sast-rules
Write custom Semgrep SAST rules in YAML to detect application-specific vulnerabilities, enforce coding standards, and integrate into CI/CD pipelines.