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 validating-detections-with-atomic-testsgit 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/validating-detections-with-atomic-tests)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/meltedinhex/analyst-ai-pack/validating-detections-with-atomic-tests"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/meltedinhex/analyst-ai-pack/validating-detections-with-atomic-tests/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/validating-detections-with-atomic-tests"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/meltedinhex/analyst-ai-pack/validating-detections-with-atomic-tests.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 | $0.00069 | $0.00628 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00314 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
validating-detections-with-atomic-tests 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.
What it actually says
Validating Detections With Atomic Tests
When to Use
- You want to validate that your detections fire for specific ATT&CK techniques by correlating Atomic Red Team test definitions with your detection inventory.
- You are measuring coverage and identifying gaps before or after running atomics.
Do not use the atomics themselves on production systems without authorization and isolation — they execute adversary behaviors. This skill performs mapping/coverage analysis offline.
Prerequisites
- An export of Atomic test→technique mappings (CSV/JSON) and your detection inventory mapped to ATT&CK techniques.
Workflow
Step 1: Compute coverage
python scripts/analyst.py coverage --atomics atomics.json --detections detections.json
Joins atomic-tested techniques with your detections' covered techniques and reports covered vs uncovered techniques.
Step 2: Prioritize gaps
Rank uncovered techniques by the number of atomic tests (more atomics → more validated adversary behavior you currently miss).
Step 3: Validate live (authorized/isolated)
For covered techniques, run the corresponding atomic in an isolated range and confirm the detection fires; record results.
Step 4: Close gaps
Author detections for high-priority uncovered techniques and re-run coverage.
Validation
- Coverage join keys on ATT&CK technique IDs (including sub-techniques).
- Covered and uncovered technique lists are complete and disjoint.
- Gap prioritization reflects atomic-test counts.
Pitfalls
- Sub-technique vs parent-technique mismatch (T1059 vs T1059.001) skewing coverage.
- Claiming coverage from a rule that exists but is disabled/untuned.
- Running atomics outside an isolated, authorized range.
References
- See
references/api-reference.mdfor the coverage tool. - Atomic Red Team and ATT&CK references (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 · 87 lines · 69 tokens per session scan A c208fed1b7d5
validating-detections-with-atomic-tests is a skill published in the GitHub repository meltedinhex/analyst-ai-pack (22 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 69 tokens to every session and 628 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
analyzing-cobalt-strike-beacon-configuration
Extract and analyze Cobalt Strike beacon configuration from PE files and memory dumps to identify C2 infrastructure, malleable profiles, and operator tradecraft.
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.
yara-rule-writing-malware
Write custom YARA rules to identify and classify malware based on textual and binary patterns. This skill focuses on creating robust signatures using strings, regular expressions, and hexadecimal opcodes extracted during malware analysis for enterprise threat hunting.
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.