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 ratnesh-maurya/cursor-claude-personas --skill sharp-edgesgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ratnesh-maurya/cursor-claude-personasWrote 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/ratnesh-maurya/cursor-claude-personas/sharp-edges)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ratnesh-maurya/cursor-claude-personas/sharp-edges"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ratnesh-maurya/cursor-claude-personas/sharp-edges/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/ratnesh-maurya/cursor-claude-personas/sharp-edges"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ratnesh-maurya/cursor-claude-personas/sharp-edges.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 | $0.00007 | $0.02334 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00003 | $0.01167 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00467 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00233 |
Grade A, and why
sharp-edges 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.
This is a copy
88% identical to sharp-edges — 44 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 294 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
name: sharp-edges description: "Identifies error-prone APIs, dangerous configurations, and footgun designs that enable security mistakes. Use when reviewing API designs, configuration schemas, cryptographic library ergonomics, or evaluating whether code follows 'secure by...
Sharp Edges Analysis
Evaluates whether APIs, configurations, and interfaces are resistant to developer misuse. Identifies designs where the "easy path" leads to insecurity.
When to Use
- Reviewing API or library design decisions
- Auditing configuration schemas for dangerous options
- Evaluating cryptographic API ergonomics
- Assessing authentication/authorization interfaces
- Reviewing any code that exposes security-relevant choices to developers
When NOT to Use
- Implementation bugs (use standard code review)
- Business logic flaws (use domain-specific analysis)
- Performance optimization (different concern)
Core Principle
The pit of success: Secure usage should be the path of least resistance. If developers must understand cryptography, read documentation carefully, or remember special rules to avoid vulnerabilities, the API has failed.
Rationalizations to Reject
| Rationalization | Why It's Wrong | Required Action |
|---|---|---|
| "It's documented" | Developers don't read docs under deadline pressure | Make the secure choice the default or only option |
| "Advanced users need flexibility" | Flexibility creates footguns; most "advanced" usage is copy-paste | Provide safe high-level APIs; hide primitives |
| "It's the developer's responsibility" | Blame-shifting; you designed the footgun | Remove the footgun or make it impossible to misuse |
| "Nobody would actually do that" | Developers do everything imaginable under pressure | Assume maximum developer confusion |
| "It's just a configuration option" | Config is code; wrong configs ship to production | Validate configs; reject dangerous combinations |
| "We need backwards compatibility" | Insecure defaults can't be grandfather-claused | Deprecate loudly; force migration |
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 · 294 lines · 7 tokens per session scan A 10ad059240cc
sharp-edges is a skill published in the GitHub repository ratnesh-maurya/cursor-claude-personas (8 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 7 tokens to every session and 2,334 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to sharp-edges, differing in 44 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
gentle-ai-collab-perfect
Trigger: contributing to Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai as an external collaborator. Strict issue-first workflow, honest PR bodies, contributor-vs-maintainer scope, chained-PR strategy, verification protocol, docstring coverage. Load whenever the active repo is Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai and any part of the…
sdd-verify
Skill "sdd-verify" from Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai, covering execution role, language domain contract, activation contract, hard rules and decision gates.
branch-pr
Create Gentle AI pull requests with issue-first checks. Trigger: creating, opening, or preparing PRs for review.
work-unit-commits
Plan commits as reviewable work units. Trigger: implementation, commit splitting, chained PRs, or keeping tests and docs with code.
cognitive-doc-design
Design docs that reduce cognitive load. Trigger: writing guides, READMEs, RFCs, onboarding, architecture, or review-facing docs.
systemic-issue-triage
Trigger: new issue, bug report, triage, backlog, issue flood, community report, root cause, dead-end, blocked user. Attack issues by root class, never one-by-one; fixes must shrink the system, not grow it.