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 andycungkrinx91/konoha --skill conducting-phishing-incident-responsegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/andycungkrinx91/konohaWrote 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/andycungkrinx91/konoha/conducting-phishing-incident-response)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/andycungkrinx91/konoha/conducting-phishing-incident-response"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/andycungkrinx91/konoha/conducting-phishing-incident-response/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/andycungkrinx91/konoha/conducting-phishing-incident-response"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/andycungkrinx91/konoha/conducting-phishing-incident-response.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 | $0.00079 | $0.02654 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.01062 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00531 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00265 |
Grade A, and why
conducting-phishing-incident-response 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 today.
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
89% identical to conducting-phishing-incident-response — 32 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 — 290 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Conducting Phishing Incident Response
When to Use
- A user reports receiving a suspicious email via the phishing report button or abuse mailbox
- Email gateway detects a malicious email that bypassed initial filtering
- Threat intelligence indicates an active phishing campaign targeting the organization
- A user confirms they clicked a link or opened an attachment from a suspicious email
- Credentials have been entered on a suspected phishing page
Do not use for business email compromise (BEC) involving compromised internal accounts; use BEC response procedures which focus on account takeover investigation.
Prerequisites
- Email security gateway with message trace and quarantine capabilities (Microsoft Defender for Office 365, Proofpoint, Mimecast)
- Microsoft 365 admin access or Google Workspace admin for mailbox search and purge
- Malware sandbox for attachment and URL analysis (ANY.RUN, Joe Sandbox, Hybrid Analysis)
- Email header analysis tools (MXToolbox Header Analyzer, Google Admin Toolbox)
- Identity provider access for account remediation (Azure AD, Okta, Duo)
- Phishing report intake process (dedicated mailbox or integrated report button)
Workflow
Step 1: Receive and Triage the Phishing Report
Evaluate the reported email to determine if it is malicious:
- Extract the email as an .EML or .MSG file (preserves headers)
- Analyze email headers to determine the true sender, relay path, and authentication results
Email Header Analysis Checklist:
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Return-Path: billing@spoofed-domain[.]com
From: "IT Support" <support@corp-lookalike[.]com>
Reply-To: attacker@gmail[.]com (different from From)
SPF: FAIL (sender IP not authorized for domain)
DKIM: FAIL (signature invalid)
DMARC: FAIL (policy: none - no enforcement)
Received: from mail.attacker-infra[.]net [45.33.x.x]
X-Originating-IP: 45.33.x.x
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Classification criteria:
- Confirmed Phishing: Malicious URL/attachment, spoofed sender, credential harvesting page
- Suspicious: Anomalous headers but no confirmed malicious content
- Spam/Marketing: Unwanted but not malicious
- Legitimate: Not a phishing email (false report)
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.
- today First seen · 290 lines · 79 tokens per session scan A 267ed953f75e
conducting-phishing-incident-response is a skill published in the GitHub repository andycungkrinx91/konoha (12 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 79 tokens to every session and 2,654 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to conducting-phishing-incident-response, differing in 32 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
conducting-phishing-incident-response
Responds to phishing incidents by analyzing reported emails, extracting indicators, assessing credential compromise, quarantining malicious messages across the organization, and remediating affected accounts. Covers email header analysis, URL/attachment sandboxing, and mailbox-wide purge operations. Activates for…
conducting-phishing-incident-response
Respond to phishing incidents by analyzing reported emails, extracting indicators, sandboxing URLs/attachments, assessing credential compromise, quarantining malicious messages organization-wide, and remediating affected accounts. Use when investigating a reported phishing or credential-phishing email, a suspected…
conducting-phishing-incident-response
Responds to phishing incidents by analyzing reported emails, extracting indicators, assessing credential compromise, quarantining malicious messages across the organization, and remediating affected accounts. Covers email header analysis, URL/attachment sandboxing, and mailbox-wide purge operations. Activates for…
analyzing-malicious-url-with-urlscan
URLScan.io is a free service for scanning and analyzing suspicious URLs. It captures screenshots, DOM content, HTTP transactions, JavaScript behavior, and network connections of web pages in an isolat.
detecting-compromised-cloud-credentials
Detecting compromised cloud credentials across AWS, Azure, and GCP by analyzing anomalous API activity, impossible travel patterns, unauthorized resource provisioning, and credential abuse indicators using GuardDuty, Defender for Identity, and SCC Event Threat Detection.
building-phishing-reporting-button-workflow
Implement a phishing report button in email clients with automated triage workflow that analyzes user-reported suspicious emails and provides feedback to reporters.