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 | $0.01051 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00526 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00210 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00105 |
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 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.
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 — 80 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).
Source Reliability
How trustworthy is the source based on its track record?
| Code | Rating | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| A | Completely reliable | No doubt about the source's authenticity, trustworthiness, or competency. History of complete reliability. |
| B | Usually reliable | Minor doubt. Source has been reliable in most instances. |
| C | Fairly reliable | Doubt about reliability. Source has provided valid information in the past but not consistently. |
| D | Not usually reliable | Significant doubt. Source has been unreliable in the past. |
| E | Unreliable | Source has a track record of being unreliable, or the information is obtained under duress/deception. |
| F | Reliability cannot be judged | No basis for evaluating the source's reliability. New or unknown source. |
Source Reliability Decision Guide
- A: National CERTs, established security vendors (Mandiant, CrowdStrike, Microsoft), peer-reviewed research, direct forensic evidence from your own systems
- B: Reputable threat intelligence providers, well-known security researchers, ISACs, FIRST members
- C: Community threat feeds, open-source intelligence tools with mixed accuracy, semi-verified social media accounts of known researchers
- D: Unverified forum posts, anonymous tips, single-source claims without corroboration
- E: Known disinformation actors, sources with demonstrated fabrication history
- F: First-time sources, automated feeds without historical accuracy data, newly discovered paste sites
Information Credibility
How likely is the information itself to be accurate, regardless of source?
| Code | Rating | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Confirmed | Confirmed by other independent sources. Logical, consistent with other information on the subject. |
| 2 | Probably true | Not confirmed, but logical and consistent with other information. |
| 3 | Possibly true | Not confirmed. Reasonably logical but not fully consistent with other information. |
| 4 | Doubtful | Not confirmed. Possible but not logical. No other information on the subject. |
| 5 | Improbable | Not confirmed. Not logical. Contradicted by other information on the subject. |
| 6 | Truth cannot be judged | No basis for evaluating the information's veracity. |
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 · 80 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A dbc003ba6794
source-assessment is a skill published in the GitHub repository Liberty91LTD/cti-skills (18 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 1,051 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
ai-ad-copy-compliance-review
A risk-review assistant for advertising and sales copy. It examines provided material for possible concerns and suggests actions.
ai-agent-browser
A business-diagnosis assistant for marketing, operations, product, and sales questions. It breaks down a goal and produces a summary, findings, action suggestions, and reusable deliverables.
ai-article
A Chinese-language assistant for turning source material into article and content-operation deliverables. It is aimed at creators, marketers, technical teams, and media publishers.
ai-brand-voice-review
A business-diagnosis assistant for marketing, operations, services, and sales questions.
ai-browser-use
A business-diagnosis assistant for marketing, operations, product, and sales questions about how to approach a task.
ai-content-material-audit
A Chinese-language copy-review assistant for creators, marketers, operators, and media teams.