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 phuonghx/aim-cli --skill vulnerability-scannergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/phuonghx/aim-cliWrote 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/phuonghx/aim-cli/vulnerability-scanner)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/phuonghx/aim-cli/vulnerability-scanner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/phuonghx/aim-cli/vulnerability-scanner/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/phuonghx/aim-cli/vulnerability-scanner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/phuonghx/aim-cli/vulnerability-scanner.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 | $0.00078 | $0.01732 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00031 | $0.00693 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00346 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00173 |
Grade A, and why
vulnerability-scanner 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 1mo 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 — 199 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Vulnerability Scanner
Reason like the attacker, then close the gap like the defender. Keep the current threat landscape in view.
Automation
| Script | What it does | How to run |
|---|---|---|
scripts/security_scan.py |
Checks deps, secrets, risky patterns, and config | python scripts/security_scan.py <project_path> |
Reference
| File | Contents |
|---|---|
| checklists.md | Copy-ready checklists: OWASP, auth, API, data protection |
The defender's mental model
Operating assumptions
- Assume breach -- design as though an attacker is already inside.
- Zero trust -- verify every request; trust nothing implicitly.
- Layered defense -- no single control should be load-bearing.
- Least privilege -- grant the minimum access that works.
- Fail closed -- when something errors, deny rather than allow.
Frame the threat before scanning
- What's valuable here? (the assets)
- Who would come after it? (the actors)
- By what route? (the vectors)
- What does a successful hit cost the business? (the impact)
OWASP Top 10 (2025)
| Code | Category | The core question |
|---|---|---|
| A01 | Broken Access Control | Who can reach what? Watch for IDOR and SSRF |
| A02 | Security Misconfiguration | Leftover defaults, missing headers, exposed services |
| A03 | Software Supply Chain (new) | Dependencies, CI/CD, build integrity |
| A04 | Cryptographic Failures | Weak crypto, leaked secrets |
| A05 | Injection | Untrusted input flowing into interpreters |
| A06 | Insecure Design | Flaws baked into the architecture |
| A07 | Authentication Failures | Sessions and credential handling |
| A08 | Integrity Failures | Unsigned updates, tampered data |
| A09 | Logging & Alerting | Blind spots, no monitoring |
| A10 | Mishandling Exceptional Conditions (new) | Error handling, fail-open behavior |
What shifted from 2021
- SSRF folded into Access Control (A01).
- Misconfiguration rose in prominence with cloud and container defaults.
- Supply chain promoted to its own category (A03) and a primary focus.
- A new entry for exceptional-condition handling (A10).
- Overall emphasis moved toward root causes over surface symptoms.
What ships with it
2 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 199 lines · 78 tokens per session scan A b96da61cd2c3
vulnerability-scanner is a skill published in the GitHub repository phuonghx/aim-cli (1 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 78 tokens to every session and 1,732 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
memory-retain
Save what was learned to Hindsight long-term memory. Use when a task finishes, when the user states a fact, decision or preference, and when you discover something a later run or another Bot would need.
managing-mcp-servers
Use when the user asks to add, change, remove, enable or disable an MCP server, or when an MCP tool is missing, needs sign-in, fails, or was blocked. ThinkRail runs pi in-process, so there is no pi command to call.
todos
Use when the user asks for a shared plan, a task needs at least three substantive execution steps, or a loose TODO is pending. Without an explicit plan request, not for one-shot answers or checks, or one- to two-step work that is not already in the list.
writing-workflow-skills
Use when adding a new workflow skill to pi-thinkrail-workflow, changing an existing workflow skill's role, trigger, handoff, or structure, or checking a workflow skill against the workflow system's rules. Not for authoring general-purpose skills outside this package.
web-platform-baseline
Use this skill before asserting that a CSS, HTML or accessibility capability is available, unavailable, or the right tool — it carries dated, refreshable platform facts and refuses to let stale knowledge be stated as current. Triggers: user says "container query", "can I use", "browser support", "modern CSS", ":has"…
doc-coauthoring
Collaboratively author technical specifications, RFCs, PRDs, ADRs, and decision documents through structured context gathering, iterative refinement, and blind reader testing. Use when drafting substantial documentation, architecture proposals, or engineering design records.