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 HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standard --skill common-exploit-verificationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standardWrote 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/hoangnguyen0403/agent-skills-standard/common-exploit-verification)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hoangnguyen0403/agent-skills-standard/common-exploit-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hoangnguyen0403/agent-skills-standard/common-exploit-verification/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/hoangnguyen0403/agent-skills-standard/common-exploit-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hoangnguyen0403/agent-skills-standard/common-exploit-verification.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 | $0.00061 | $0.00742 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00297 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00148 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00074 |
Grade A, and why
common-exploit-verification 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 1mo 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 — 83 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Exploit Verification Standard
Priority: P0 (CRITICAL)
Always-Apply Rules
- No Exploit = No Report: Finding without reproducible PoC is discarded. No exceptions.
- No Theoretical Findings: "This could be exploited if..." → rejected. Demonstrate actual impact.
- No Tool Output as Evidence: Scanner output alone insufficient. Manual verification required.
PoC Construction
Every confirmed finding must include all fields:
ID: [unique identifier]
Vulnerability: [CWE-XXX: type name]
Platform: [backend|frontend|mobile-ios|mobile-android]
Component: [file:line or endpoint]
Severity: [Critical|High|Medium|Low] (CVSS: X.X)
OWASP: [mapping — e.g., A03:2021, API1:2023, M4:2024]
-- Proof of Concept --
Preconditions: [required state, auth level, config]
Steps:
1. [exact step with command/payload]
2. [expected vs actual result]
Payload: [exact input — copy-paste ready]
Evidence: [response body, status code, data returned]
-- Impact --
Impact: [what attacker gains — data, access, control]
Blast Radius: [lateral movement, escalation paths]
-- Remediation --
Fix: [specific code change, not generic advice]
Validation Gate
| Result | Action | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| ✅ Confirmed | Include in report | PoC reproduces, impact demonstrated |
| ⚠️ Conditional | Include with conditions | Requires specific config/timing/race |
| ❌ Unconfirmed | Discard | Cannot reproduce despite 3 attempts |
| 🔄 Degraded | Downgrade severity | Partial impact, mitigating controls exist |
False Positive Filters
See false-positive-checklist for platform-specific filters.
Quick checks before reporting:
- SAST-only finding: Is the flagged code actually reachable from user input? Trace full data flow.
- Scanner noise: Does the "vulnerability" have compensating controls (WAF, middleware, framework defaults)?
- Version mismatch: Is the CVE for a function the project actually uses (reachability analysis)?
- Client-side only: Is the "bypass" only client-side while server enforces correctly?
What ships with it
3 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 83 lines · 61 tokens per session scan A 39e9fa1756d8
common-exploit-verification is a skill published in the GitHub repository HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standard (583 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 742 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.
Other skills, from other repositories
browser-automation
Playwright browser automation via MCP. Covers E2E testing, UI review, web scraping, screenshot capture, and general browser interaction. MCP-first — CLI is fallback only.
vue-idioms
Vue 3 Composition API patterns: syntax, reactive state with Pinia stores, reusable composables, and Vitest component testing. Use when developing or refactoring Vue 3 frontend applications.
python-idioms
Modern Python (3.11+) idioms: type annotations, typing Protocols, Pydantic models, asyncio, pytest fixtures, and Ruff/Mypy strict compliance. Use when writing, refactoring, or reviewing Python applications, APIs, or scripts.
mobile-testing
Mobile E2E testing patterns — Flutter integrationtest, Patrol, Maestro, golden testing, device matrix, and test data management. Use when writing E2E tests for mobile applications.
testability-patterns
Implementation examples for the three testability rules (I/O isolation, pure logic, dependency direction) across Go, TypeScript, Python, Rust, and Dart. Loaded by reference from architectural-pattern.md — not triggered by file patterns.
testing-strategy
Detailed testing reference material: test doubles strategy, integration test infrastructure (Testcontainers, Firebase emulator), naming conventions per language, test organization patterns. Load when writing tests or setting up test infrastructure. The core mandates (TDD, AAA, pyramid) are in the testing-strategy rule…