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 dandye/ai-runbooks --skill respond-malwaregit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dandye/ai-runbooksWrote 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/dandye/ai-runbooks/respond-malware)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dandye/ai-runbooks/respond-malware"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dandye/ai-runbooks/respond-malware/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/dandye/ai-runbooks/respond-malware"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dandye/ai-runbooks/respond-malware.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00047 | $0.01450 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00580 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00290 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00145 |
Grade A, and why
respond-malware 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 2mo 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 — 249 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Malware Incident Response Skill
Structured workflow for responding to suspected malware incidents using the PICERL model.
Inputs
CASE_ID- SOAR case ID for the incidentALERT_GROUP_IDENTIFIERS- Alert group identifiers from SOARINITIAL_INDICATORS- Details from initial alerts:- File hashes
- IPs/domains
- Affected hosts
- Affected users
Required Outputs
After completing each phase, you MUST report these outputs:
Identification Phase
| Output | Description |
|---|---|
AFFECTED_HOSTS |
Hosts with confirmed malware |
MALWARE_SAMPLES |
File hashes requiring triage/analysis |
MALWARE_IOCS |
Network indicators (IPs, domains, URLs) |
AFFECTED_USERS |
Users who executed/accessed malware |
Containment Phase
| Output | Description |
|---|---|
ISOLATED_HOSTS |
Hosts successfully isolated from network |
BLOCKED_IOCS |
IOCs blocked at firewall/proxy |
Eradication Phase
| Output | Description |
|---|---|
CLEANED_HOSTS |
Hosts with malware removed |
REMOVED_PERSISTENCE |
Persistence mechanisms removed |
Recovery Phase
| Output | Description |
|---|---|
RESTORED_HOSTS |
Hosts restored to operational state |
VALIDATION_STATUS |
Post-recovery scan results |
PICERL Phases
Phase 2: Identification
Step 2.1: Initial Triage
Use /triage-alert with CASE_ID for initial assessment.
secops-soar.get_case_full_details(case_id=CASE_ID)
Use /check-duplicates.
Step 2.2: Malware Triage
If file hash is primary indicator:
Use /triage-malware:
/triage-malware FILE_HASH=abc123 CASE_ID=1234
This provides:
- GTI classification
- Behavioral indicators
- Network IOCs
- Affected hosts/users
Step 2.3: IOC Enrichment
For other key IOCs (IPs, domains, URLs):
Use /enrich-ioc for each.
Step 2.4: Initial Scope Assessment
Compile:
AFFECTED_ENDPOINTS- Hosts with malwareAFFECTED_USERS- Users who executed/accessedMALICIOUS_IOCs- Network indicators
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 249 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A 4e30a2851180
respond-malware is a skill published in the GitHub repository dandye/ai-runbooks (132 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 1,450 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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.
respond-malware compared with skills from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| respond-malwaredandye/ai-runbooks | Skill | 132 | 2mo ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 47 | Claude Code, Codex |
| imagegenopenai/codex | Skill | 134k | today | Apache-2.0 | A | 113 | Codex |
| local-ai-agentsmicrosoft/ai-agents-for-beginners | Skill | 79k | yesterday | MIT | A | 200 | Claude Code, Codex |
| playwright-climicrosoft/playwright | Skill | 100k | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 19 | Claude Code |
| browser-automationopenclaw/openclaw | Skill | 394k | today | MIT | A | 36 | Claude Code |
| systematic-debuggingobra/superpowers | Skill | 315k | 5d ago | MIT | A | 21 | Claude Code |
| next-cache-components-adoptionvercel/next.js | Skill | 143k | today | MIT | A | 95 | Claude Code |