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 bdmorin/the-no-shop --skill analyze-incidentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bdmorin/the-no-shopWrote 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/bdmorin/the-no-shop/analyze-incident)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bdmorin/the-no-shop/analyze-incident"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bdmorin/the-no-shop/analyze-incident/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/bdmorin/the-no-shop/analyze-incident"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bdmorin/the-no-shop/analyze-incident.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 | $0.00011 | $0.00612 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00306 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00122 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00061 |
Grade A, and why
analyze-incident 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 11d 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.
What it actually says
Cybersecurity Hack Article Analysis: Efficient Data Extraction
Objective: To swiftly and effectively gather essential information from articles about cybersecurity breaches, prioritizing conciseness and order.
Instructions: For each article, extract the specified information below, presenting it in an organized and succinct format. Ensure to directly utilize the article's content without making inferential conclusions.
- Attack Date: YYYY-MM-DD
- Summary: A concise overview in one sentence.
- Key Details:
- Attack Type: Main method used (e.g., "Ransomware").
- Vulnerable Component: The exploited element (e.g., "Email system").
- Attacker Information:
- Name/Organization: When available (e.g., "APT28").
- Country of Origin: If identified (e.g., "China").
- Target Information:
- Name: The targeted entity.
- Country: Location of impact (e.g., "USA").
- Size: Entity size (e.g., "Large enterprise").
- Industry: Affected sector (e.g., "Healthcare").
- Incident Details:
- CVE's: Identified CVEs (e.g., CVE-XXX, CVE-XXX).
- Accounts Compromised: Quantity (e.g., "5000").
- Business Impact: Brief description (e.g., "Operational disruption").
- Impact Explanation: In one sentence.
- Root Cause: Principal reason (e.g., "Unpatched software").
- Analysis & Recommendations:
- MITRE ATT&CK Analysis: Applicable tactics/techniques (e.g., "T1566, T1486").
- Atomic Red Team Atomics: Recommended tests (e.g., "T1566.001").
- Remediation:
- Recommendation: Summary of action (e.g., "Implement MFA").
- Action Plan: Stepwise approach (e.g., "1. Update software, 2. Train staff").
- Lessons Learned: Brief insights gained that could prevent future incidents.
Attribution
- Source: danielmiessler/fabric
- Pattern:
analyze_incident(view original) - License: MIT — Copyright (c) 2012-2024 Scott Chacon and others
- Converted by: fabric-decomp for the-no-shop
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 55 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 49d1e3bb6947
analyze-incident is a skill published in the GitHub repository bdmorin/the-no-shop (10 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 612 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
vast-ai-gpu-cloud
Safely inspect and operate Vast.ai marketplace instances with the vastai CLI, live offer data, and explicit approval before paid or destructive actions.
ci-self-heal
A diagnostic guide for analysing failed continuous-integration checks. Continuous integration, or CI, automatically tests and builds code changes; this guide classifies failures and suggests fixes without editing the code.
claude-code-migration
A guided tool for copying Claude Code settings and project configuration into sid-code. It checks what can be moved, asks before writing, and records what was transferred.
code-review
A review process for a pull request, which is a proposed set of code changes. It examines the changed code and its surrounding files for bugs, security problems, design issues, and lint errors.
security-audit
A security review skill for examining code changes in a pull request, which is a proposed set of changes awaiting approval. It reports issues such as injection, exposed secrets, unsafe authentication, weak cryptography, vulnerable dependencies, and infrastructure mistakes.
incident-rca
A diagnostic process for producing a structured root-cause analysis of a serious production incident, such as a P0 or P1 outage. It compares logs, measurements, request traces, code changes, and architecture decisions, and gives ranked explanations and actions.