automotive-sotif-hazard-scenario

automotive-sotif-hazard-scenario is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from pangzhenying2025/hermes-automotive-skills. It costs 27 tokens per session (2,871 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A reference skill for finding and analysing hazardous situations in automated-driving systems under SOTIF, the ISO 21448 safety standard. It focuses on triggering conditions, hazard scenarios, and reducing unsafe situations that may be caused by limitations in the intended function.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to construct hazard scenarios, analyse triggering conditions, classify known and unknown risks, and support SOTIF safety work.
Why use it?
It gives teams a systematic way to identify unsafe cases that ordinary failure analysis may miss, including unknown or unexpected operating conditions.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one.

Good fit Use it to construct hazard scenarios, analyse triggering conditions, classify known and unknown risks, and support SOTIF safety work.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/pangzhenying2025/hermes-automotive-skills/automotive-sotif-hazard-scenario
Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add pangzhenying2025/hermes-automotive-skills --skill automotive-sotif-hazard-scenario
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pangzhenying2025/hermes-automotive-skills

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for automotive-sotif-hazard-scenario

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pangzhenying2025/hermes-automotive-skills/automotive-sotif-hazard-scenario/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/pangzhenying2025/hermes-automotive-skills/automotive-sotif-hazard-scenario)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pangzhenying2025/hermes-automotive-skills/automotive-sotif-hazard-scenario"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pangzhenying2025/hermes-automotive-skills/automotive-sotif-hazard-scenario/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for automotive-sotif-hazard-scenario

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pangzhenying2025/hermes-automotive-skills/automotive-sotif-hazard-scenario"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pangzhenying2025/hermes-automotive-skills/automotive-sotif-hazard-scenario.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 27 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 2,871 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00027 $0.02871
Opus 5 $0.00014 $0.01435
Sonnet 5 $0.00005 $0.00574
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00287

Measured 9d ago against content hash e661180775f0, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-12, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

automotive-sotif-hazard-scenario 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.

skills/automotive-sotif-hazard-scenario/SKILL.md · 361 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 361 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Automotive Sotif Hazard Scenario

Sotif Hazard Scenario

SOTIF Hazard Scenario Construction — Systematic Identification and Analysis

Overview

Deep methodology for SOTIF (Safety Of The Intended Functionality, ISO 21448) hazard scenario identification, construction, and analysis. This skill goes beyond basic SOTIF overview to provide actionable frameworks for identifying triggering conditions, constructing hazardous scenarios, and systematically reducing the unknown unsafe area.

The Four-Quadrant Framework (Deep Dive)

ISO 21448 Four-Quadrant Model
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
              Known                Unknown
         ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────┐
         │   Area 1        │   Area 3        │
  Safe   │   Known Safe    │   Unknown Safe  │
         │   已知安全        │   未知安全       │
         │                 │                 │
         │ ✓ Normal ops    │ ? Safe but      │
         │ ✓ Validated     │   undiscovered  │
         ├─────────────────┼─────────────────┤
         │   Area 2        │   Area 4        │
 Unsafe  │   Known Unsafe  │   Unknown       │
         │   已知不安全      │   Unsafe        │
         │                 │   未知不安全      │
         │ ⚠ Identified    │ ✗ Greatest risk │
         │ ⚠ Mitigated     │ ✗ Must minimize │
         └─────────────────┴─────────────────┘
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

SOTIF Goal: Minimize Area 4 (unknown unsafe)
            by moving scenarios to Area 2 (known unsafe → mitigated)
            or Area 1 (known safe → validated)

Triggering Condition Taxonomy

Systematic Identification Method

# Triggering Condition Identification Framework
triggering_conditions = {
    "sensing_limitations": {
        "camera": {
            "illumination": [
                "Direct sunlight / sun glare (太阳眩光)",
                "Low sun angle (5°-15° elevation)",
                "Tunnel entry/exit (dark-bright transition)",
                "Night without street lights",
                "LED traffic light flicker (PWM)",
                "Headlight reflection on wet road",
            ],
            "weather": [
                "Heavy rain (>25mm/h)",
                "Fog (visibility <200m)",
                "Snow (lens covered / white-out)",
                "Haze/smog (PM2.5 >200 in China)",
                "Sandstorm (Northern China specific)",
            ],
            "occlusion": [
                "Lens contamination (mud, insects, water drops)",
                "Partial blockage by adjacent objects",
                "Wiper interference during rain",
                "Ice/frost on lens",
            ],
            "perception_failures": [
                "White vehicle against white sky",
                "Black vehicle in shadow",
                "Motorcycle/bicycle thin profile",
                "Unusual vehicle shapes (overloaded truck)",
                "Road debris vs. road texture confusion",
                "Lane marking worn/faded/absent",
                "Temporary vs. permanent lane markings",
            ],
        },
        "radar": {
            "interference": [
                "Multi-path reflection (guardrails, tunnels)",
                "Adjacent vehicle radar interference",
                "Metallic bridge overhead reflection",
                "Rain clutter (heavy precipitation)",
            ],
            "missed_detection": [
                "Stationary objects (bridge pillars, barriers)",
                "Low-RCS targets (motorcycle, pedestrian)",
                "Crossing targets at extreme angles",
                "Speed-ambiguity (relative speed near zero)",
            ],
            "false_detection": [
                "Manhole covers (strong radar return)",
                "Metal debris on road",
                "Overhead signs/structures (elevated targets)",
                "Guardrail reflections as ghost targets",
            ],
        },
        "lidar": {
            "limitations": [
                "Black/dark surfaces (low reflectivity)",
                "Transparent objects (glass barriers)",
                "Rain/fog scattering",
                "Direct sunlight saturation",
                "Dust/dirt on sensor window",
            ],
        },
        "gnss_localization": {
            "degradation": [
                "Urban canyon (tall buildings)",
                "Tunnel (no GNSS signal)",
                "Dense tree canopy",
                "Multi-path interference (bridges)",
                "Jamming/spoofing",
            ],
        },
    },
    "algorithm_limitations": {
        "perception": [
            "Out-of-distribution objects (rare objects)",
            "Adversarial patterns (adversarial patches)",
            "Domain shift (training vs. deployment environment)",
            "Class confusion (truck rear vs. wall)",
            "Tracking ID switch (occluded targets)",
        ],
        "prediction": [
            "Unpredictable human behavior (jaywalker)",
            "Unusual vehicle maneuvers (illegal U-turn)",
            "Group behavior (crowd crossing)",
            "Intention ambiguity (vehicle drifting in lane)",
        ],
        "planning": [
            "Conflicting objectives (comfort vs. safety)",
            "Rare road geometry (unusual intersection)",
            "Construction zone navigation",
            "Emergency vehicle response",
        ],
    },
    "human_factors": {
        "misuse": [
            "Overreliance on automation (complacency)",
            "Distracted driving during L2",
            "Intentional abuse (hands-off driving)",
            "Misunderstanding of ODD boundaries",
        ],
        "takeover_failures": [
            "Slow response after long automation use",
            "Mode confusion (manual vs. automated)",
            "Incorrect takeover action (wrong pedal)",
            "Physical impairment (drowsy, intoxicated)",
        ],
    },
    "infrastructure": [
        "Missing/contradictory road signs",
        "Temporary construction zone",
        "Road surface irregularities (potholes)",
        "Non-standard intersection layout",
        "Toll station / service area transitions",
    ],
}

Read the full file on GitHub · 361 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 9d ago First seen · 361 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A e661180775f0

Subscribe to this mod's changes

automotive-sotif-hazard-scenario is a skill published in the GitHub repository pangzhenying2025/hermes-automotive-skills (5 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 2,871 once invoked, about $0.0001 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.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

iso26262

ISO 26262 functional-safety expert that operates in two modes: (1) HARA / ASIL determination — enumerate hazardous events from item malfunctions × driving situations, rate Severity (S0–S3), Exposure (E0–E4), Controllability (C0–C3), look up ASIL from ISO 26262-3:2018 Table 4, and produce a HARA report with Safety…

ptsilivis/autonomousguy · 197 tokens

automotive-syseng

When the user wants to analyze automotive requirements, check INCOSE/EARS compliance, review MISRA-C code, assess ADAS levels, or verify ISO 26262/AUTOSAR/SOTIF conformance. Also use when the user says 'check requirements', 'EARS check', 'INCOSE analysis', 'MISRA check', 'ASIL assessment', 'V-model check'…

duonghvu/automotive-syseng · 122 tokens

automotive-expert

Expert-level automotive systems, connected vehicles, fleet management, telematics, ADAS, and automotive software. Use when the user mentions connected car, fleet, telematics, ADAS, or vehicle, or when the task involves Automotive Systems, Technologies, Standards and Protocols, or Fleet Management.

personamanagmentlayer/pcl · 64 tokens

misra

MISRA C:2025 expert that operates in two modes: (1) Review — scan existing C code for violations across all 223 guidelines (22 directives + 201 rules), report findings with rule IDs, corrected code, and deviation justification templates; (2) Develop — generate new C functions, modules, or data structures that are…

ptsilivis/autonomousguy · 221 tokens

requirements

Requirements-engineering expert that operates in three modes: (1) Elicitation — extract atomic, testable requirements from briefs, meeting notes, or system specs using EARS notation, with full attribute set (ID, type, priority, ASIL, verification method, source), flagging ambiguities as open questions; (2) Refinement…

ptsilivis/autonomousguy · 221 tokens

research-engineer

An uncompromising Academic Research Engineer. Operates with absolute scientific rigor, objective criticism, and zero flair. Focuses on theoretical correctness, formal verification, and optimal implementation across any required technology.

davila7/claude-code-templates · 43 tokens