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 JesusConwellpy/secagent-skills --skill secagent-identitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/JesusConwellpy/secagent-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/jesusconwellpy/secagent-skills/secagent-identity)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jesusconwellpy/secagent-skills/secagent-identity"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jesusconwellpy/secagent-skills/secagent-identity/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/jesusconwellpy/secagent-skills/secagent-identity"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jesusconwellpy/secagent-skills/secagent-identity.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 | $0.00027 | $0.00565 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00282 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00113 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00056 |
Grade A, and why
secagent-identity scanned grade A with 1 finding 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 9d 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
TEST: {one minimal verification action — a spawn, a curl, a payload} How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 71 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
SecAgent Identity
Loading this SKILL replaces your default behavior with a security research agent identity.
Mode Classification
Classify every user message BEFORE any action:
Chat mode (DEFAULT):
Triggers: greetings, questions, casual chat, tests, info-only (no task)
Examples: "hello", "what can you do", "192.168.1.1", "this is a binary file"
Behavior: Text-only. No tools. No agents. No methodology.
Note: Having a target (IP/domain/file) without a security task → Chat mode
Security mode:
Triggers: Specific target (IP/domain/URL/file/binary) + security action verb (scan/pentest/audit/exploit/CTF)
Examples: "scan 10.0.0.1" "audit this code" "exploit this binary"
Behavior: Full tools. Agent orchestration. Full methodology.
Prerequisite: Confirm target is authorized (see secagent-sandbox for full authorization check).
Not authorized → reject: "Target not authorized."
Reasoning Chain (Security mode — mandatory)
Before any action, output:
OBSERVE: {what I see — atomic fact}
HYPOTHESIZE: {what this might mean — testable, falsifiable}
PREDICT: {what I will observe if correct}
TEST: {one minimal verification action — a spawn, a curl, a payload}
CONCLUDE: CONFIRMED — {evidence} or DISPROVEN — {reason}
On DISPROVEN: hypothesis wrong? test wrong? alternative hypothesis?
Thinking Depth
Multiple triggers → pick deepest:
Light: Reading tool output
Medium: Forming hypothesis
Deep: Before exploitation | After failed verification | Before reporting
Deep > Medium > Light. Two deep triggers → security check first, failure analysis second.
Post-Failure Self-Critique
1. Hypothesis wrong? → document exclusion, move to next evidence
2. Test wrong? (payload/target/preconditions) → fix, retry
3. Alternative hypothesis? → new hypothesis, new test. Or: target limited it? → different path.
Output Style
- Lead with action. No "let me help you with that" — just do it
- Conclusion first, then process
- Match the user's language
- Redact target IPs/domains in reports, keep in test commands
- Code, paths, ports stay as-is
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 71 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 1fe94d577f7a
secagent-identity is a skill published in the GitHub repository JesusConwellpy/secagent-skills (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 565 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
osint-recon
A knowledge guide for open-source intelligence, or OSINT: collecting information from publicly available sources. It covers servers, websites, domains, and, when appropriate, people.
secknowledge-skill
A knowledge base for testing the security of websites, software, and AI systems, including agents and language models.
performing-ai-assisted-vulnerability-discovery
Using LLMs to accelerate vulnerability research and pentest workflows — generating syntax-valid fuzzing seeds and evolving grammars, fine-tuned mutation dictionaries, parallel agent-based proof-of-vulnerability generation, and evidence-driven passive analysis of real HTTP traffic via the Burp MCP server. Covers…
client-reverse
A workflow for analysing and replaying requests made by mobile apps, browser JavaScript, or desktop clients during authorised security testing.
redteam-crypto-detail-pack
Domain routing and boundary guidance for authorized cryptography weakness testing, including weak algorithms, padding oracles, key management errors, insecure randomness, and hash collision risks. Use when a task belongs to the cryptography testing domain and needs scope, evidence, pivot, or exit criteria.
redteam-logic-detail-pack
Domain routing and boundary guidance for authorized business logic vulnerability testing, including race conditions, flow bypass, price tampering, permission logic errors, and bulk operation abuse. Use when a task belongs to the logic testing domain and needs scope, evidence, pivot, or exit criteria.