CyberStrike is an open-source AI security harness that automates penetration testing by using language models as agents for reconnaissance, vulnerability discovery, exploitation, and reporting. Security practitioners use it to test systems from a terminal, and the catalogue contains skills and settings for its workflow.
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 CyberStrikeus/CyberStrike --skill cis-aws-foundations-3.1.3git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/CyberStrikeus/CyberStrikeWrote 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/cyberstrikeus/cyberstrike/cis-aws-foundations-3.1.3)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/cyberstrikeus/cyberstrike/cis-aws-foundations-3.1.3"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cyberstrikeus/cyberstrike/cis-aws-foundations-3.1.3/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/cyberstrikeus/cyberstrike/cis-aws-foundations-3.1.3"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cyberstrikeus/cyberstrike/cis-aws-foundations-3.1.3.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Rogue Agent · line 73 Skill establishes unauthorized persistence across sessions via cron jobs, startup scripts, or state files. Session persistence allows an attacker to maintain access beyond the current interaction.Fix: Remove any persistence mechanisms (cron jobs, startup scripts, state files). Skills should not maintain state across sessions without explicit user consent.
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 | $0.00029 | $0.01116 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00558 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00223 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00112 |
Grade A, and why
cis-aws-foundations-3.1.3 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 13d 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.
The source is not reproduced here
Licensed AGPL-3.0
The repository is licensed AGPL-3.0, which this catalogue does not treat as permission to reproduce the file. Read it at the source.
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.
- 13d ago First seen · 114 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 1597df010fc8
cis-aws-foundations-3.1.3 is a skill published in the GitHub repository CyberStrikeus/CyberStrike (2,699 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed AGPL-3.0. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 1,116 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
detecting-s3-data-exfiltration-attempts
Detecting data exfiltration attempts from AWS S3 buckets by analyzing CloudTrail S3 data events, VPC Flow Logs, GuardDuty findings, Amazon Macie alerts, and S3 access patterns to identify unauthorized bulk downloads and cross-account data transfers.
implementing-aws-macie-for-data-classification
Implement Amazon Macie to automatically discover, classify, and protect sensitive data in S3 buckets using machine learning and pattern matching for PII, financial data, and credentials detection.
implementing-aws-macie-for-data-classification
Implement Amazon Macie to automatically discover, classify, and protect sensitive data in S3 buckets using machine learning and pattern matching for PII, financial data, and credentials detection.
api-security-testing
Security-test a REST, GraphQL, or gRPC API with Strix — autonomous agents that enumerate endpoints from an OpenAPI/GraphQL schema (or by crawling), then actually exploit the API-specific vulnerability classes in the OWASP API Security Top 10 (2023) — broken object-level authorization (BOLA/IDOR), broken object…
fix-security-vulnerabilities-with-strix
Fix security vulnerabilities found by a Strix pentest (open-source CLI or app.strix.ai cloud) — triage by severity, patch the root cause rather than the symptom, and re-run Strix to prove each fix actually closes the exploit. Handles injection, XSS, SSRF, broken access control, IDOR, and other validated findings. Use…
owasp-top-10-testing
Test an application against the OWASP Top 10 with Strix — autonomous AI agents that attempt real exploits for each category of the current OWASP Top 10:2025 (broken access control including SSRF, security misconfiguration, software supply chain failures, cryptographic failures, injection, insecure design…