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-wiper-malwaregit 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-wiper-malware)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/meltedinhex/analyst-ai-pack/analyzing-wiper-malware"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/meltedinhex/analyst-ai-pack/analyzing-wiper-malware/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-wiper-malware"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/meltedinhex/analyst-ai-pack/analyzing-wiper-malware.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 | $0.00075 | $0.00724 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00037 | $0.00362 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00145 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00072 |
Grade A, and why
analyzing-wiper-malware 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 — 90 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Analyzing Wiper Malware
When to Use
- You have a sample suspected of destructive intent and need to identify disk-overwrite, MBR/VBR tampering, and mass-deletion primitives.
- You must distinguish a wiper (irreversible destruction) from ransomware (encryption for ransom).
Do not use this on a live host or by running the sample — destructive behavior is the threat. Analyze statically in isolation.
Prerequisites
- The sample, read inertly.
Safety & Handling
- Read bytes statically; never execute. A wiper run is unrecoverable — isolation is mandatory.
Workflow
Step 1: Detect destructive primitives
python scripts/analyst.py scan sample.bin
Flags raw-disk handles (\\.\PhysicalDrive, \\.\C:), DeviceIoControl, MBR/VBR write patterns,
CreateFileMapping over the boot sector, and bulk DeleteFile/overwrite loops.
Step 2: Detect backup/recovery destruction
Surface vssadmin delete shadows, wbadmin delete, bcdedit /set recoveryenabled no, and
wevtutil cl (log clearing) — common wiper recovery-denial steps.
Step 3: Distinguish wiper vs ransomware
Weigh destruction-without-crypto and absence of a ransom note / key exchange against encryption-and-extortion indicators to classify intent.
Step 4: Document
Record the destruction method (overwrite pattern, MBR vs file-level) and recovery-denial steps.
Validation
- Destructive primitives reference real raw-disk/boot-record APIs, not generic file IO.
- Recovery-denial commands are detected where present.
- The wiper-vs-ransomware classification cites concrete evidence.
Pitfalls
- Disk utilities and secure-erase tools share these primitives — context is essential.
- Pseudo-ransomware wipers that display a note but cannot decrypt (intent is destruction).
- Bootloader-only wipers needing boot-sector analysis (pair with the rootkit/bootkit skill).
References
- See
references/api-reference.mdfor the scanner. - ATT&CK T1561 and T1485 (linked in frontmatter).
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 90 lines · 75 tokens per session scan A e39e9f9cbcac
analyzing-wiper-malware is a skill published in the GitHub repository meltedinhex/analyst-ai-pack (22 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 75 tokens to every session and 724 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.