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 Liberty91LTD/cti-skills --skill source-assessmentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Liberty91LTD/cti-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/liberty91ltd/cti-skills/source-assessment)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/liberty91ltd/cti-skills/source-assessment"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/liberty91ltd/cti-skills/source-assessment/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/liberty91ltd/cti-skills/source-assessment"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/liberty91ltd/cti-skills/source-assessment.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 | $0.00052 | $0.01560 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00624 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00312 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00156 |
Grade A, and why
source-assessment 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 — 101 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Source & Information Assessment — NATO Admiralty Scale
Every piece of intelligence entering this platform MUST be assessed using the Admiralty Scale. This is non-negotiable. Tag every item with a two-character code (e.g., B2). Claims from documents are the exception: they carry the evidence grade instead, see below.
How this differs from the evidence grade
The pack uses two instruments. They are not the same and neither is converted into the other.
- Admiralty reliability is the source's track record: how often it has been right before. The evidence grade's access level is how the source knows the particular thing claimed.
- Admiralty is a letter and a number (B2). The evidence grade is two words, access level then claim support ("direct, firm").
- Documents, articles and reports are graded per claim by
/quality-of-information-checkwith the evidence grade. Lookup results and single items are rated here, on the Admiralty scale.
Scope of This Skill
This skill is the reference for the Admiralty scale itself: what the letters and digits mean and how to apply them to a single item, such as a lookup result, a feed entry or a tip.
Documents, articles and reports are graded per claim by /quality-of-information-check, using its fixed rubric (references/grading-rubric.md in that skill). That grade is the evidence grade, not an Admiralty rating. It resolves the article to its originating source first, then grades each claim on the chain it arrived through. One report usually contains claims of different standing, so one grade for the whole report is wrong.
The pack does not store reliability opinions about named organisations. Where the guides and examples below name a vendor or agency, they illustrate a kind of access and track record. They are not standing grades for that organisation. In one report the same organisation can publish an observation that /quality-of-information-check grades "direct, firm" and an attribution it grades "direct, tentative".
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 Changed · +21 lines 7becc5a09553
- 2mo ago First seen · 80 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A dbc003ba6794
source-assessment is a skill published in the GitHub repository Liberty91LTD/cti-skills (36 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 1,560 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
analyzing-campaign-attribution-evidence
Systematically evaluate cyber-campaign evidence to attribute an operation to a threat actor, using the Diamond Model and Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) to weigh infrastructure overlaps, TTP consistency, malware code similarity, and timing/language artifacts into confidence-weighted attribution assessments. Use…
analyzing-threat-actor-ttps-with-mitre-attack
MITRE ATT&CK is a globally-accessible knowledge base of adversary tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) based on real-world observations. This skill covers systematically mapping threat actor beh.
analyzing-threat-landscape-with-misp
Analyze the threat landscape using MISP (Malware Information Sharing Platform) by querying event statistics, attribute distributions, threat actor galaxy clusters, and tag trends over time. Uses PyMISP to pull event data, compute IOC type breakdowns, identify top threat actors and malware families, and generate threat…
analyzing-campaign-attribution-evidence
Use when campaign attribution analysis involves systematically evaluating evidence to determine which threat actor or group is responsible for a cyber operation. This skill covers collecting and weighting attr.
prompt-injection-auditor
Security audit of LLM system prompts, agent instruction files (SKILL.md, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md), and agent configurations against prompt injection attacks. Use when the user wants to (1) audit or harden a system prompt or agent instructions against prompt injection, (2) review an agent skill or system prompt for…
analyzing-campaign-attribution-evidence
Campaign attribution analysis involves systematically evaluating evidence to determine which threat actor or group is responsible for a cyber operation. This skill covers collecting and weighting attr.