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 darthzen/fossa-mcp --skill fossa-attributiongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/darthzen/fossa-mcpWrote 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/darthzen/fossa-mcp/fossa-attribution)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/darthzen/fossa-mcp/fossa-attribution"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/darthzen/fossa-mcp/fossa-attribution/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/darthzen/fossa-mcp/fossa-attribution"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/darthzen/fossa-mcp/fossa-attribution.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 | $0.00074 | $0.03467 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00037 | $0.01733 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00693 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00347 |
Grade A, and why
fossa-attribution 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 8d 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 — 277 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
fossa-attribution
Pin a FOSSA project revision, pull its attribution report, agree the inclusion scope with the user, and write the attribution file(s) — a NOTICE-style summary and/or a full THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES with complete license texts — with every unresolvable entry flagged rather than dropped.
Why this workflow exists: most licenses that permit redistribution require notice in return — the license text, the copyright line, or both, preserved in the shipped artifact. The failure mode is not producing an ugly file; it is producing a plausible-looking file with silent gaps. A dependency missing from the notices is a compliance hole nobody will spot by reading the file, which is why steps 5 and 6 (flag the gaps, reconcile the counts) are the non-negotiable part of this skill.
This skill produces the artifact. Whether attribution is required at all for a given distribution, and which obligations attach, is the sibling skill [[fossa-license-review]] — run that first when the question is "do we owe notices" rather than "write the notices".
Ask which project if it isn't named. Everything else below is procedure.
1. Resolve the project and pin the revision
Never guess a locator, and never generate against "latest" without recording what latest resolved to — an attribution document that cannot say which build it covers is not evidence of anything.
fossa_list_projects(title=...)→ the project locator andlatestRevision.locator.- If the user wants a specific release rather than the newest scan:
fossa_list_project_revisions(project_locator=..., refs_type="tag")for tagged releases, orlocator_contains=<sha-prefix>to find a commit.resolved_only=True(the default) is what you want — an unresolved revision has no dependency analysis to report on.
Whichever way you got it, write the full revision locator down, including the
$<revision> suffix, and put it in the header of the generated file:
project, revision, and the date the report was pulled. That triple is the
document's provenance.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 277 lines · 74 tokens per session scan A b97180f73a34
fossa-attribution is a skill published in the GitHub repository darthzen/fossa-mcp (1 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 74 tokens to every session and 3,467 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
specification-writing
A workflow for writing complete patent specifications from patent claims and an invention disclosure. It adapts the document to a chosen jurisdiction, such as the US, Europe, or China.
regulatory-research-fallback
Fallback workflow for regulatory research when web extraction tools fail on government PDFs.
x-scorecard
OpenSSF Scorecard for assessing open source project security. Check security best practices and compliance. Dependency: This is an x-cmd module. Install x-cmd first (see x-cmd skill for installation options). see x-cmd skill for installation.
gesellschaftsrechtliche-satzungen-agb
Für Gesellschaftsrechtliche Satzungen AGB Abgrenzung: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Prüfprodukt mit Risiko und nächstem Schritt. Fachgebiet: AGB-Recht-Prüfer. Route: gesellschaftsrechtliche-satzungen-agb.
memstack-business-gdpr
Use this skill when the user says 'GDPR', 'data protection', 'privacy compliance', 'DPA', 'DSAR', 'data subject request', 'cookie consent', 'privacy audit', 'CCPA', or asks 'do I need GDPR for this repo'. Scans the repository to detect what personal data is collected, classifies sensitivity, determines whether GDPR…
nda-review
Use when the user uploads or pastes a non-disclosure agreement and asks for review, redline, risk assessment, or a recommendation on whether to sign. Identifies missing standard protections, one-sided or unusual provisions, and operational issues; produces a structured report with severity ratings and citations to…