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 meltedinhex/analyst-ai-pack --skill analyzing-authenticode-signaturesgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/meltedinhex/analyst-ai-packWrote 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/meltedinhex/analyst-ai-pack/analyzing-authenticode-signatures)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/meltedinhex/analyst-ai-pack/analyzing-authenticode-signatures"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/meltedinhex/analyst-ai-pack/analyzing-authenticode-signatures/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/meltedinhex/analyst-ai-pack/analyzing-authenticode-signatures"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/meltedinhex/analyst-ai-pack/analyzing-authenticode-signatures.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 | $0.00074 | $0.00750 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00037 | $0.00375 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00150 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00075 |
Grade A, and why
analyzing-authenticode-signatures 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 10d 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 — 92 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Analyzing Authenticode Signatures
When to Use
- You need to know whether a PE is signed and whether the signer is trustworthy.
- You suspect a stolen/abused code-signing certificate or a forged/invalid signature.
- You are distinguishing legitimately signed software from signed malware.
Do not use "is signed" as "is safe" — adversaries use stolen certs, abuse catalog signing, and append invalid signatures; a valid signature only attests the signer, not benignity.
Prerequisites
- Access to the PE security directory (Python
struct/pefile); on Windows,signtool/PowerShellGet-AuthenticodeSignaturefor authoritative verification.
Safety & Handling
- Parse the signature statically; never execute the sample.
- Keep the sample password-protected at rest and reference it by hash.
Workflow
Step 1: Check for a signature
Read the PE security directory (certificate table). Absent entry = unsigned; present = embedded PKCS#7. Note that valid signing can also be via a catalog file (not embedded).
python scripts/analyst.py check sample.exe
Step 2: Extract signer details
Parse the PKCS#7 to read the signer certificate: subject, issuer, validity dates, and serial. Cross-reference against known-abused/stolen certs.
Step 3: Verify, do not just read
On Windows, verify the signature cryptographically and check revocation
(Get-AuthenticodeSignature). A present-but-invalid signature is a strong red flag.
Step 4: Assess trust in context
Weigh signer reputation, certificate age, and whether the signed file's behavior matches the purported publisher. Treat anomalies (recently issued cert, mismatched publisher) as suspicious.
Validation
- Signature presence is determined from the security directory, and verified (not just read) on Windows.
- Signer certificate details are extracted and checked against abuse intel.
- The trust conclusion accounts for revocation/validity, not mere presence.
Pitfalls
- Equating a present signature with safety; stolen-cert malware is common.
- Missing catalog-signed files by only checking embedded signatures.
- Reading the signature without cryptographically verifying it.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 92 lines · 74 tokens per session scan A ae63cbb3849f
analyzing-authenticode-signatures is a skill published in the GitHub repository meltedinhex/analyst-ai-pack (22 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 74 tokens to every session and 750 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
analyzing-golang-malware-with-ghidra
Reverse engineer Go-compiled malware in Ghidra by parsing Go buildinfo and pclntab structures, recovering stripped/obfuscated function names (e.g. via GoResolver), and extracting embedded module/dependency strings and types from Go binaries. Use when analyzing a Go-language malware sample, deobfuscating a…
analyzing-malicious-pdf-with-peepdf
Perform static analysis of malicious PDF documents using peepdf, pdfid, and pdf-parser to extract embedded JavaScript, shellcode, and suspicious objects. Use when triaging a suspicious PDF attachment from a phishing email, analyzing a PDF-based exploit document, or building detection signatures for weaponized PDF…
analyzing-malicious-pdf-with-peepdf
A Chinese-language skill for examining suspicious PDF files with peepdf, pdfid, and pdf-parser. It is intended for static malware analysis, which studies a file without running it.
analyzing-malicious-pdf-with-peepdf
Perform static analysis of malicious PDF documents using peepdf, pdfid, and pdf-parser to extract embedded JavaScript, shellcode, and suspicious objects.
analyzing-malicious-pdf-with-peepdf
Perform static analysis of malicious PDF documents using peepdf, pdfid, and pdf-parser to extract embedded JavaScript, shellcode, and suspicious objects.
analyzing-malicious-pdf-with-peepdf
Perform static analysis of malicious PDF documents using peepdf, pdfid, and pdf-parser to extract embedded JavaScript, shellcode, and suspicious objects.