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 kortix-ai/suna --skill nda-playbookgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kortix-ai/sunaWrote 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/kortix-ai/suna/nda-playbook)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kortix-ai/suna/nda-playbook"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kortix-ai/suna/nda-playbook/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/kortix-ai/suna/nda-playbook"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kortix-ai/suna/nda-playbook.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 68 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00070 | $0.01398 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00035 | $0.00699 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00280 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00140 |
Grade A, and why
nda-playbook 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.
The source is not reproduced here
A licence we could not identify
The repository carries a LICENSE file, but it is custom or dual enough that GitHub cannot name it and neither can this catalogue. Unknown terms are not permission, so the body is not copied here. Read the licence at the source and decide for yourself.
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 · 124 lines · 70 tokens per session scan A 246a676c65e0
nda-playbook is a skill published in the GitHub repository kortix-ai/suna (20,195 stars, last pushed yesterday), with no licence file. It adds 70 tokens to every session and 1,398 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
osint-investigation
Follow the money via public records and sanctions data.
auditing-deid-leakage
Adversarially scan already-de-identified clinical text for residual identifiers and emit a leakage report that blocks release on any hit. Use after OpenMed de-identification when the user asks to verify a redaction, prove no PHI/PII leaked, gate a dataset before sharing, or run a second-pass detector. Covers format…
auditing-deidentification-runs
Produce a signed, reproducible, no-PHI audit trail for an OpenMed de-identification run via deidentify(audit=True). Use when the user needs compliance evidence, a tamper-evident record of what was redacted and why, to verify nothing was changed, to retain proof for HIPAA/GDPR audits, or to review de-id decisions…
auditing-part11-trails
Generates and verifies 21 CFR Part 11-style audit trails — who/what/when, electronic signatures, and tamper-evidence — for OpenMed pipelines in GxP and clinical-trial (GCP) settings. Use when the user runs OpenMed in a regulated/validated environment and needs an attributable, time-stamped, tamper-evident record of…
configuring-privacy-policies
Select and customize OpenMed's seven bundled privacy policy profiles for de-identification, and build custom surrogate generators. Use when the user asks which policy fits HIPAA Safe Harbor vs Expert Determination vs GDPR vs PIPEDA vs a research limited dataset vs strict no-leak, wants to pass policy= to deidentify()…
generating-synthetic-surrogates
Replace detected PHI with realistic, type-matched fake values in OpenMed so clinical notes stay readable and parseable instead of full of [REDACTED] markers. Use when the user wants surrogate names, MRNs, addresses, or dates rather than opaque masks, needs consistent fake identities across a document, must keep notes…