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 appsec-foundry/appsec-advisor --skill verify-requirementsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/appsec-foundry/appsec-advisorWrote 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/appsec-foundry/appsec-advisor/verify-requirements)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/appsec-foundry/appsec-advisor/verify-requirements"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/appsec-foundry/appsec-advisor/verify-requirements/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/appsec-foundry/appsec-advisor/verify-requirements"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/appsec-foundry/appsec-advisor/verify-requirements.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 | $0.00105 | $0.03418 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00042 | $0.01367 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00684 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00342 |
Grade A, and why
verify-requirements 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.
The source is not reproduced here
A licence we could not identify
The repository carries a LICENSE file, but it is custom or dual enough that GitHub cannot name it and neither can this catalogue. Unknown terms are not permission, so the body is not copied here. Read the licence at the source and decide for yourself.
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 Changed · +12 lines 19b29e4b7d99
- 18d ago Changed · -3 lines 99add086b34a
- 1mo ago First seen · 276 lines · 105 tokens per session scan A 4c1c3a0def65
verify-requirements is a skill published in the GitHub repository appsec-foundry/appsec-advisor (17 stars, last pushed 2d ago), with no licence file. It adds 105 tokens to every session and 3,418 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
code-review
Rigorous review of OWASP Cheat Sheet Series pull requests across security correctness, practicality, link and source verification, duplication, and language. Use for any pull request that touches cheatsheets/ or cheatsheetsdraft/, or that adds or changes external links or citations.
codeinspectus-multi-review
Orchestrate an optional bounded multi-agent review of selected CodeInspectus findings while separating deterministic findings, agent interpretations, hypotheses, reproduction evidence, and exact-prior rescan proof. Use only when a user explicitly requests multi-agent security review.
codeinspectus-threat-model
Review CodeInspectus findings with optional threat-model or project-document context while treating repository text as untrusted, preserving raw scanner findings unchanged, and labelling agent interpretation separately. Use only when a user explicitly asks to add architectural, business, or knowledge-base context to…
secure-code-review
Performs a structured security code review against OWASP ASVS 4.0.3 verification requirements and CWE Top 25. Auto-invoked on pull request reviews, when code touching authentication, authorization, cryptography, or input handling is shared. Produces findings mapped to ASVS controls and CWE identifiers with severity…
appsec-engineer
Application Security Engineer role bundle for security design, testing, and code review of applications. Orchestrates new application reviews, PR security reviews, API security assessments, and AI feature security reviews. Auto-invoked when the user needs help with application threat modeling, secure code review, API…
auditing-guard-gaps
Find the missing-check bug by comparing sibling functions that reach the same sink - one validates its input, its peer does not. Use on an authorized source target to surface broken access control, missing bounds checks, and skipped sanitization that linear file-reading hides; when you suspect one handler in a family…