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 HermeticOrmus/LibreSecOps-Claude-Code --skill verify-libre-secopsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HermeticOrmus/LibreSecOps-Claude-CodeWrote 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/hermeticormus/libresecops-claude-code/verify-libre-secops)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hermeticormus/libresecops-claude-code/verify-libre-secops"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hermeticormus/libresecops-claude-code/verify-libre-secops/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/hermeticormus/libresecops-claude-code/verify-libre-secops"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hermeticormus/libresecops-claude-code/verify-libre-secops.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 | $0.00085 | $0.01447 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.00579 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00289 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00145 |
Grade A, and why
verify-libre-secops 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 12d 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.
This is a copy
91% identical to verify-libreuiux — 25 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verify LibreSecOps-Claude-Code
LibreSecOps-Claude-Code is a plugin library, not a running app: 33 plugins under plugins/, published as the libre-secops marketplace. Its user surface is the install. A user adds this repo as a plugin marketplace in Claude Code or Grok Build, installs plugins from it (or runs ./setup.sh from a clone), and then uses the skills, commands, agents and hooks those plugins bring. This skill drives that path in throwaway configs, so a proof never touches your own Claude Code config or Grok home.
Helper (executable, bash; needs claude, grok, jq and git): .grok/skills/verify-libre-secops/bin/control-libre-secops
B=.grok/skills/verify-libre-secops/bin/control-libre-secops
$B --help
$B doctor # worth driving? CLIs, head, manifests in sync
$B run # every plugins, both CLIs, prove each loaded; one JSON result
$B run --only threat-modeling # the same for the plugins a change touched
$B run --pr 12 --expect <sha> # the same on a PR head, fetched into a scratch clone
$B install --claude --only threat-modeling # a fresh run that keeps its clean config for the next steps
$B details threat-modeling # component inventory in the latest run (both CLIs)
$B setup --list # ./setup.sh inside the latest run's clean configs
$B check # scripts/check.sh, the repo's one check command
$B cleanup # drop every run's scratch; the evidence stays
JSON on stdout, progress on stderr, exit 1 on any failed proof. Everything the helper writes lives under VERIFY_LIBRE_SECOPS_HOME (default ~/.local/share/verify-libre-secops): runs/<stamp>-<head8>/ (or <stamp>-pr<N>-<head8>) holds scratch/ and evidence/, and runs/latest points at the newest run.
Launch
- There is no server. Launching is starting a run: a run folder with an empty Claude Code config (
CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR) and an empty Grok home (GROK_HOME), both underscratch/. - The tree under test is the checkout the helper sits in. With
--pr Nit is a scratch clone ofrefs/pull/N/headfetched fromorigin, and--expect <sha>refuses any other head. - Claude Code adds the tree as the
libre-secopsmarketplace and installs<plugin>@libre-secops. Grok adds the checkout as a marketplace named after its folder, then installs<plugin>@<folder>. - Ready when the marketplace add exits 0:
evidence/claude-marketplace-add.logandevidence/grok-marketplace-add.log(orgrok-install.log) end inexit 0. - Teardown:
runremoves its own scratch when it finishes. Afterinstall, runcleanupwhen you are done withdetailsandsetup.
What ships with it
6 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.
- 12d ago First seen · 75 lines · 85 tokens per session scan A f8ce67750392
verify-libre-secops is a skill published in the GitHub repository HermeticOrmus/LibreSecOps-Claude-Code (4 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 85 tokens to every session and 1,447 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to verify-libreuiux, differing in 25 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
implementing-devsecops-security-scanning
Integrates Static Application Security Testing (SAST), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST), and Software Composition Analysis (SCA) into CI/CD pipelines using open-source tools. Covers Semgrep for SAST, Trivy for SCA and container scanning, OWASP ZAP for DAST, and Gitleaks for secrets detection. Activates for…
dast-config
Reviews DAST tool configurations against OWASP Top 10:2021 and OWASP Testing Guide v4.2. Auto-invoked when reviewing OWASP ZAP configurations, DAST CI/CD integration, scan policies, or authenticated scanning setups. Produces a DAST maturity assessment covering scan policy configuration, active vs passive scanning, API…
integrating-dast-with-owasp-zap-in-pipeline
This skill covers integrating OWASP ZAP (Zed Attack Proxy) for Dynamic Application Security Testing in CI/CD pipelines. It addresses configuring baseline, full, and API scans against running applications, interpreting ZAP findings, tuning scan policies, and establishing DAST quality gates in GitHub Actions and GitLab…
implementing-runtime-application-self-protection
Deploy Runtime Application Self-Protection (RASP) agents to detect and block attacks from within application runtime, covering OpenRASP integration, attack pattern detection, and security policy configuration for Java and Python web applications.
ai-stress-test
Test system behavior under extreme load to find breaking points, capacity limits, and failure modes. Covers stress, spike, and breakpoint testing with k6 (primary), JMeter, or Locust. Refuses unbounded concurrency and production saturation without explicit approval. Trigger for "stress test", "load test until it…
integrating-dast-with-owasp-zap-in-pipeline
This skill covers integrating OWASP ZAP (Zed Attack Proxy) for Dynamic Application Security Testing in CI/CD pipelines. It addresses configuring baseline, full, and API scans against running applications, interpreting ZAP findings, tuning scan policies, and establishing DAST quality gates in GitHub Actions and GitLab…