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 agentmods add skills/codexstar69/bug-hunter/vulnerability-validationnpx skills add codexstar69/bug-hunter --skill vulnerability-validationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/codexstar69/bug-hunterWhat 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 | $0.00049 | $0.00436 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00218 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00087 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00044 |
Grade A, and why
vulnerability-validation 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 2d 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
Vulnerability Validation
This is a bundled local Bug Hunter companion skill. It strengthens the security-specific parts of the Skeptic/Referee process.
Purpose
Take suspected or confirmed security findings and answer:
- Is the vulnerable path reachable?
- Can an attacker control the input?
- Are there existing mitigations?
- How exploitable is it really?
- What is the CVSS / PoC / impact level?
Inputs
Prefer Bug Hunter-native artifacts:
.bug-hunter/hunter-findings.json.bug-hunter/threat-model.md.bug-hunter/security-config.json.bug-hunter/dep-findings.jsonwhen dependency issues are involved
Workflow
- Read the findings and isolate the security ones.
- Trace reachability:
- EXTERNAL
- AUTHENTICATED
- INTERNAL
- UNREACHABLE
- Trace exploitability:
- EASY
- MEDIUM
- HARD
- NOT_EXPLOITABLE
- Check for mitigations already present in code, framework behavior, or deployment assumptions.
- For confirmed HIGH/CRITICAL security bugs, generate:
- exploitation path
- benign proof of concept
- CVSS vector + score
- Feed the result back into Bug Hunter-native verdicting.
Outputs
When used as a companion to the main pipeline, keep outputs compatible with:
.bug-hunter/referee.json.bug-hunter/report.md
If a separate validation artifact is helpful for the run, place it under .bug-hunter/validated-findings.json.
Important constraints
- This skill validates findings; it does not replace the normal fix pipeline.
- Keep outputs portable and self-contained under
.bug-hunter/. - Prefer explicit reasoning for false positives so the user can trust dismissals.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 60 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A 407a867e1587
vulnerability-validation is a skill published in the GitHub repository codexstar69/bug-hunter (498 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 436 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
logic-review
Find logic bugs in a single file or function via semi-formal execution tracing (Premises → Trace → Divergence → Trigger → Remedy). Trigger when a user shares code and suspects something is wrong without naming a concrete failure — phrases like "review this", "does this look right", "check this function", "audit this…
logic-fix-all
Autonomous repository-wide audit-and-fix pipeline: health → review → locate/explain → fix → diff-verify → iterate until clean. Starts with a mandatory consent prompt (token-intensive); after consent runs hands-free. Trigger when the user wants ALL logic issues found and fixed — "fix everything", "fix all logic…
logic-health
Sweep a directory, module, or full codebase for logic correctness and produce a scored health dashboard with systemic patterns. Trigger when the user requests a health view — "audit the whole codebase", "health check", "health overview", "logic health overview", "audit src/", "audit auth and payments modules", "where…
run-iteration-eval
Run the Logic-Lens content-eval pipeline for one iteration and produce a scored summary.json — use to measure a skill change. Wraps scripts/run-content-evals.sh (runner, costs tokens) and scripts/grade-iteration.py (grader, free, re-runnable). ALWAYS sync the plugin cache first. Use when the user wants to "run the…
new-skill
Scaffold a new logic- skill in the Logic-Lens repo and wire it into every place a skill must be registered, so no step is missed. Use when adding a seventh (or later) skill to Logic-Lens.
sync-skill-cache
Sync the Logic-Lens working-copy skills/ into the installed plugin cache so content-evals test the EDITED skill, not the last published one. ALWAYS run this after editing any skills//SKILL.md or guide/shared file and BEFORE running content-evals — otherwise the eval silently grades stale content and every token is…