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/craftos-dev/craftbot/semgrep-rule-creatornpx skills add CraftOS-dev/CraftBot --skill semgrep-rule-creatorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/CraftOS-dev/CraftBotWrote 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/craftos-dev/craftbot/semgrep-rule-creator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/craftos-dev/craftbot/semgrep-rule-creator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/craftos-dev/craftbot/semgrep-rule-creator.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.01729 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00864 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00346 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00173 |
Grade A, and why
semgrep-rule-creator scanned grade A with 1 finding 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.
Runs shell commandslowCapability
Expected in a hook, worth knowing in a rule or an instructions file.
pattern: os.system("rm " + $VAR) This is a copy
86% identical to semgrep-rule-creator — 26 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 166 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Semgrep Rule Creator
Create production-quality Semgrep rules with proper testing and validation.
When to Use
Ideal scenarios:
- Writing Semgrep rules for specific bug patterns
- Writing rules to detect security vulnerabilities in your codebase
- Writing taint mode rules for data flow vulnerabilities
- Writing rules to enforce coding standards
When NOT to Use
Do NOT use this skill for:
- Running existing Semgrep rulesets
- General static analysis without custom rules (use
static-analysisskill)
Rationalizations to Reject
When writing Semgrep rules, reject these common shortcuts:
- "The pattern looks complete" → Still run
semgrep --test --config <rule-id>.yaml <rule-id>.<ext>to verify. Untested rules have hidden false positives/negatives. - "It matches the vulnerable case" → Matching vulnerabilities is half the job. Verify safe cases don't match (false positives break trust).
- "Taint mode is overkill for this" → If data flows from user input to a dangerous sink, taint mode gives better precision than pattern matching.
- "One test is enough" → Include edge cases: different coding styles, sanitized inputs, safe alternatives, and boundary conditions.
- "I'll optimize the patterns first" → Write correct patterns first, optimize after all tests pass. Premature optimization causes regressions.
- "The AST dump is too complex" → The AST reveals exactly how Semgrep sees code. Skipping it leads to patterns that miss syntactic variations.
Anti-Patterns
Too broad - matches everything, useless for detection:
# BAD: Matches any function call
pattern: $FUNC(...)
# GOOD: Specific dangerous function
pattern: eval(...)
Missing safe cases in tests - leads to undetected false positives:
# BAD: Only tests vulnerable case
# ruleid: my-rule
dangerous(user_input)
# GOOD: Include safe cases to verify no false positives
# ruleid: my-rule
dangerous(user_input)
# ok: my-rule
dangerous(sanitize(user_input))
# ok: my-rule
dangerous("hardcoded_safe_value")
What ships with it
2 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.
- 2d ago First seen · 166 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A e915f8b04351
semgrep-rule-creator is a skill published in the GitHub repository CraftOS-dev/CraftBot (378 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 1,729 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (runs shell commands). It is 86% identical to semgrep-rule-creator, differing in 26 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
growing-outside-in-systems
Drive feature development using Outside-In TDD with Hexagonal Architecture. Design emerges through inline code, in-memory fakes, interface extraction, and deferred I/O. Use when building features, writing tests, or structuring backend services. Triggers on: TDD, outside-in, hexagonal, ports and adapters, emergent…
atomic-tdd
Test-first discipline. Auto-triggers on "let's implement X", "add feature Y", "fix bug Z", "write a test for", "implement", "build out", and similar pre-code-change phrases. Iron rule: failing test exists before production code. Skip only for pure docs/config changes with an explicit "skipped because:" note. Explicit…
tdd
Use when running the full Rails TDD loop: failing spec, implement, review, PR. Trigger words: TDD, red-green-refactor, write tests first, test-driven.
pdlc-feature
全自动 PDLC 新功能开发(串联 PRD→设计→TDD→实现→评审→发布).
tdd
Drive a change through a red-green-refactor loop - failing test first, minimal code to pass, then clean up. Use when implementing a feature or fixing a bug where correctness matters and a test can pin the behavior. Says "TDD", "test first", "red green refactor", "write the test first".
refactor-code-with-ai
Refactor code with AI assistance. Use to refactor code in TDD loop, and to improve code quality.