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 automateyournetwork/netclaw --skill defenseclaw-opsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/automateyournetwork/netclawWrote 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/automateyournetwork/netclaw/defenseclaw-ops)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/automateyournetwork/netclaw/defenseclaw-ops"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/automateyournetwork/netclaw/defenseclaw-ops/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/automateyournetwork/netclaw/defenseclaw-ops"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/automateyournetwork/netclaw/defenseclaw-ops.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00027 | $0.01227 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00613 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00245 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00123 |
Grade A, and why
defenseclaw-ops 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 10d 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 — 226 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
DefenseClaw Operations
This skill manages DefenseClaw enterprise security for NetClaw deployments.
Overview
DefenseClaw from Cisco AI Defense provides enterprise-grade security:
- OpenShell kernel-level sandbox
- Component scanning (skills, MCPs, plugins)
- Runtime guardrails (LLM inspection, tool call inspection)
- Audit logging with SIEM integration
Prerequisites
- DefenseClaw installed and enabled
defenseclawCLI in PATH
Check status:
defenseclaw --version
Common Operations
Check Security Status
# View DefenseClaw version
defenseclaw --version
# Check gateway status
pgrep defenseclaw-gateway
# View current configuration
cat ~/.openclaw/config/openclaw.json | grep -A2 security
Scan Components
Before deploying new skills, MCPs, or plugins, scan them:
# Scan a skill
defenseclaw skill scan pyats-health-check
# Scan an MCP server
defenseclaw mcp scan meraki-mcp
# Scan a plugin
defenseclaw plugin scan custom-tool
Expected output for clean component:
Scanning skill: pyats-health-check
✓ No HIGH/CRITICAL findings
Status: ALLOWED
Expected output for blocked component:
Scanning skill: bad-skill
✗ HIGH: Hardcoded credential detected
Location: config.py:15
Status: BLOCKED
Manage Tool Permissions
Block or allow specific tools:
# Block a destructive tool
defenseclaw tool block delete_file --reason "destructive operation"
# Block all write operations
defenseclaw tool block "*_write" --reason "read-only policy"
# Allow a previously blocked tool
defenseclaw tool allow delete_file
# List all tool rules
defenseclaw tool list
View Security Alerts
# View recent alerts
defenseclaw alerts
# View last 50 alerts
defenseclaw alerts --limit 50
# Filter by severity
defenseclaw alerts --severity HIGH
# Filter by date
defenseclaw alerts --after 2026-04-01
Export Audit Data
For compliance reporting:
# Export to JSON
defenseclaw alerts --export json > audit-$(date +%Y%m%d).json
# Export to CSV
defenseclaw alerts --export csv > audit-$(date +%Y%m%d).csv
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 226 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A fa11e5f979ae
defenseclaw-ops is a skill published in the GitHub repository automateyournetwork/netclaw (652 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 1,227 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
ai-identity-platform
Structured identity management for AI agent fleets — define, govern, and audit agent personas at scale.
cocoaudit
View and export the append-only session audit trail for regulated environments.
Document Compliance Audit
Audit a vendor agreement or contract: extract key clauses, check that required clause categories are present, flag compliance gaps and risks, and emit a structured audit summary. Use for compliance, contract review, audit, and vendor agreement requests.
GRC & Compliance
Governance, risk, and compliance — risk assessment and scoring, control mapping across NIST CSF 2.0 / ISO 27001:2022 / SOC 2 / CIS Controls v8, gap analysis, audit evidence preparation, and security policy generation.
performing-cryptographic-audit-of-application
A cryptographic audit systematically reviews an application's use of cryptographic primitives, protocols, and key management to identify vulnerabilities such as weak algorithms, insecure modes, hardco.
lyrik
Security assessment of a codebase — minimal mode for runner validation.