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 hamzabellouch/agent-skills --skill application-security-pentestinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hamzabellouch/agent-skillsWrote 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/hamzabellouch/agent-skills/application-security-pentesting)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hamzabellouch/agent-skills/application-security-pentesting"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hamzabellouch/agent-skills/application-security-pentesting/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/hamzabellouch/agent-skills/application-security-pentesting"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hamzabellouch/agent-skills/application-security-pentesting.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 | $0.00043 | $0.01752 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00876 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00350 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00175 |
Grade A, and why
application-security-pentesting 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 — 185 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Application Security & Penetration Testing Remediation
Overview
This skill provides standards and methodological frameworks for Application Security (AppSec) engineering, threat modeling, vulnerability assessment, and remediation of OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities. It covers secure code review, static and dynamic analysis (SAST/DAST) integration, security headers configuration, and defensive controls.
1. Core Application Security Principles
- Defense-in-Depth Architecture: Never rely on a single defensive boundary. Enforce security controls at every application layer (Network, Gateway, Application Code, Database).
- Strict Input Sanitization & Parameterization: Treat all user inputs as untrusted. Enforce parameterized queries (Prepared Statements) for database access to eliminate SQL injection, and context-aware HTML encoding to prevent XSS.
- Principle of Least Privilege (PoLP): Grant minimum required API permissions, database permissions, and system rights to microservices and database users.
- Secure Authentication & Session Lifecycle: Enforce multi-factor authentication (MFA), secure HTTP-Only SameSite cookies, session rotation on privilege escalation, and strong password hashing algorithms (Argon2id, bcrypt).
- Continuous Security Automation (DevSecOps): Integrate Static Application Security Testing (SAST), Dependency Scanning (SCA), and Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) into CI/CD pipelines.
2. Threat Modeling & Vulnerability Remediation Lifecycle
[ Application Codebase ]
│
├──▶ [ SAST Scanner (Semgrep / SonarQube) ] ──(Code Flaws)
├──▶ [ SCA Scanner (Trivy / Dependabot) ] ────(Vulnerable Dependencies)
▼
[ Security Audit Engine ]
│
│ 1. Triaging & Threat Modeling (STRIDE / DREAD)
▼
[ Security Remediation Pipeline ]
│ 2. Apply Parameterization & Sanitization
▼
[ DAST Verification (OWASP ZAP) ] ──▶ [ Hardened Production Deployment ]
| Vulnerability Class | Root Cause | Primary Defensive Remediation |
|---|---|---|
| SQL Injection (SQLi) | String concatenation in database queries | Parameterized Prepared Statements |
| Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) | Unescaped output rendered in HTML context | Content Security Policy (CSP) & DOM Encoding |
| Broken Access Control | Missing authorization checks on record IDs | Server-side RBAC / ABAC evaluation |
| CSRF | Cross-origin request forgery on cookie auth | Anti-CSRF Tokens & SameSite=Strict cookies |
| Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) | Exposing raw database primary keys | Tenant-scoped database queries & UUIDs |
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 · 185 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 78770c8e1e54
application-security-pentesting is a skill published in the GitHub repository hamzabellouch/agent-skills (4 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 1,752 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review-and-quality
Conducts multi-axis code review. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Use when you need to assess code quality across multiple dimensions before it enters the main branch.
doubt-driven-development
Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands. Use when you want every assumption cross-examined before proceeding, when stress-testing a plan for hidden failure modes, when correctness matters more than speed, when working in unfamiliar code, when stakes are high…
code-simplification
Simplifies code for clarity. Use when refactoring code for clarity without changing behavior. Use when code works but is harder to read, maintain, or extend than it should be. Use when reviewing code that has accumulated unnecessary complexity.
agents-consilium
Run external coding agents (Codex, Claude Code, OpenCode, native Grok Build, Gemini) as independent reviewers, stateful repository researchers, or single-agent implementers. Use for multi-model opinions and code review, steerable Grok research, full-access delegation, long-running work, or reattaching to delegated…
refactoring-csharp
Rename and refactor C# symbols in a .NET solution or multi-solution monorepo with a one-shot Roslyn CLI. Use when the user asks to rename a symbol, preview impact, update references across a solution, or refactor shared projects across several solutions.
agentic-readiness
Audit and improve repositories for reliable agentic work across Codex and Codex App, Claude Code, and OpenCode. Use when reviewing AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md quality and discovery, instruction routing in monorepos or meta-repos, agent settings, MCP configuration, skills, subagents, context budgets, or repository…