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 easyinplay/harnessed --skill securitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/easyinplay/harnessedWrote 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/easyinplay/harnessed/security)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/easyinplay/harnessed/security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/easyinplay/harnessed/security/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/easyinplay/harnessed/security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/easyinplay/harnessed/security.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 | $0.00106 | $0.01362 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00042 | $0.00545 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00272 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00136 |
Grade A, and why
verify-security 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 25d 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 — 81 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
verify-security workflow (v3)
Overview
1-phase sub-workflow mapping CLAUDE.md "Verify 阶段 — 可选 /cso" onto harnessed runtime (Phase v3.0-3.4 W0.13b — D-04 Stage ④ Verify 7 sub + D-12 gstack 治理关卡 + Pattern A sub-workflow ship)。
| phase | id | upstream | model | capability | gate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 01-cso |
gstack | opus | {{ capabilities.gstack-cso.cmd }} |
judgments.stage-routing.verify-security-secrets.fires |
Per-phase config loads from workflows/verify/security/workflow.yaml; engine 4-level gate
resolver evaluates phase.has_auth_or_secrets == true via expr-eval — true 则 invoke gstack
/cso (OWASP / auth / credentials / secrets 全面审查), false 则 skip。
Capability refs
Sister workflows/capabilities.yaml entries:
gstack-cso— Bucket 3 治理关卡 (impl: gstack, cmd: /cso, fires_when: phase.stage == 'verify' AND phase.has_auth_or_secrets == true)
Gate ref
Sister workflows/judgments/stage-routing.yaml:
verify-security-secrets.fires—phase.stage == 'verify' and phase.has_auth_or_secrets == true
Routing rules
- ✅ 触发: auth flow / session / credentials / API keys / SQL injection 路径 / OWASP top 10 area
- ❌ 跳过: docs / 纯 UI styling / 内部 refactor / non-security PR
How to invoke
!harnessed checkpoint intent verify-security
The banner above (when present) means this invocation is REGISTERED with the engine (an intent marker) — not yet compliant: the steps below (prompt → spawn → checkpoint complete) resolve it, and a per-turn
<workflow-intent>reminder persists until they run.
The numbered sequence below is the state machine — execute it with Bash. Do NOT improvise an equivalent flow from the Overview above: freelancing bypasses the engine (no ledger, no evidence guard). harnessed gives you the spawn-ready prompt; YOU spawn the subagent with a {{ host.native }} {{ host.spawn_subagent }} (keeps the session responsive + lets clarification round-trips reach the user).
Do NOT pipe to harnessed run verify-security — that is the CI/headless path ({{ host.harnessed_run_warning_note.execution_tail }}
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.
- 25d ago Changed · -1 lines 7683f49c72d1
- 1mo ago First seen · 82 lines · 106 tokens per session scan A 6abfe4ff1b4f
verify-security is a skill published in the GitHub repository easyinplay/harnessed (2 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 106 tokens to every session and 1,362 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
gemini
Cross-model second opinion from Google Gemini — a different AI reviewing the same changes, with deep Google ecosystem knowledge. Three modes: review (pass/fail gate for Google Ads campaigns, SEO metadata, or code), challenge (adversarial stress-test that tries to break your changes), and consult (open Q&A with Gemini…
security-architecture-review
Reviews a design or change for security before it ships — authentication and authorization, data handling, secrets, dependencies, and the secure-development practices around it. Use this to review an architecture or pull request for security, set secure coding standards, choose or tune SAST and DAST tooling, assess a…
critical-code-reviewer
Rigorously review code or pull requests for correctness, security, accessibility, maintainability, tests, and edge cases. Use when users request a critical code review, want a guided walkthrough of findings, need implementer-facing feedback, or want to prepare, create, or submit a GitHub pull request review.
boundaries
Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls, validating dependencies, before splitting modules, or reviewing architecture.
triage
Triage review findings interactively — approve, skip, or prioritize each issue. Use after /phx:review to filter findings before fixing.
pr-threads-address
Address PR review feedback by systematically working through every unresolved PR review thread on the current branch's PR - analyze each comment, make the requested code changes (with tests where useful), commit, and optionally reply and resolve.