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 ByamB4/find-cve-agent --skill fp-checkgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ByamB4/find-cve-agentWrote 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/byamb4/find-cve-agent/fp-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/byamb4/find-cve-agent/fp-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/byamb4/find-cve-agent/fp-check/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/byamb4/find-cve-agent/fp-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/byamb4/find-cve-agent/fp-check.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 | $0.00037 | $0.01301 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00651 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00260 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00130 |
Grade A, and why
fp-check 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 — 141 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
False Positive Check — MANDATORY Pre-Submission Verification
When to Use
Before ANY finding is submitted. No exceptions. This is the final gate.
When NOT to Use
- Finding or hunting for bugs (use Hunter workflow instead)
- General code review for style/performance
- Feature development or non-security tasks
Rationalizations to Reject
| Rationalization | Why It Is Wrong | Action |
|---|---|---|
| "This pattern looks dangerous" | Pattern recognition is not analysis | Trace actual data flow |
| "Similar code was vulnerable elsewhere" | Each context differs | Verify this specific instance |
| "This is clearly critical" | LLMs are biased toward seeing bugs | Complete devil's advocate |
| "Skipping verification for efficiency" | No partial analysis allowed | Run all gates |
Step 0: Restate the Claim
Restate the vulnerability in one precise sentence. If you cannot, it's likely false.
- What: exact vulnerability type and root cause
- Where: file:line of the sink
- How: data flow from attacker input to sink
- Impact: concrete security consequence
- Who: attacker privilege level required
- Bug class: consult references/bug-class-verification.md
Half of false positives collapse at this step — the claim doesn't make coherent sense.
Route: Standard vs Deep
Standard — clear claim, single component, well-understood bug class, no concurrency. Deep — ambiguous claim, cross-component flow, race conditions, logic bugs, or standard was inconclusive.
Start with Standard. It has built-in escalation checkpoints.
6-Gate Review — ALL Must Pass
Gate 1: Process Completeness
- Source identified (where attacker input enters)
- Sink identified (where dangerous operation occurs)
- Complete data flow traced source to sink
- All transformations/validations documented
Gate 2: Reachability
- Attacker can reach the vulnerable endpoint
- Attacker controls the data that reaches the sink
- No auth barrier blocks access (or bypass is part of finding)
- Input is not sanitized before reaching sink
What ships with it
6 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.
- 10d ago First seen · 141 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 05bf90872ad7
fp-check is a skill published in the GitHub repository ByamB4/find-cve-agent (48 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 1,301 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
wordpress-plugin-hunt
Hunt WP plugins via REST, exploit CVEs when version known.
deep-invade
Deep pentest WP: SSRF, plugin CVE, JS mine, port scan chain.
zimbra-attack
Zimbra SOAP user enum, CVE-2022-37042, SSRF when webmail.
wp-plugin-cve-hunt
Systematic approach to finding and testing CVEs for identified WordPress plugins. Covers plugin discovery, version extraction from multiple sources (readme.txt, assets, inline JS), CVE database cross-referencing with WPScan/Patchstack/NVD/NVD API, version-based vulnerability matching, exploitation PoC generation, and…
analyzing-sbom-for-supply-chain-vulnerabilities
Parses Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) in CycloneDX and SPDX JSON formats to identify supply chain vulnerabilities by correlating components against the NVD CVE database via the NVD 2.0 API. Builds dependency graphs, calculates risk scores, identifies transitive vulnerability paths, and generates compliance reports.…
bug-bounty-hunting
Hunt vulnerabilities like an expert, not a linear software engineer: come at a target from the overlooked angle, reason by analogy and transfer proven attack mechanisms, attack the hidden assumptions and the seams between systems, drill to the mechanism, then keep it honest with proof and persistence (acceptance !=…