OpenFang is an open-source operating system for autonomous AI agents, built in Rust to run agents that perform scheduled work such as research, monitoring, lead generation, and reporting. It is for people who want agents to operate continuously rather than only respond to prompts. The catalogue add-ons extend workflows around the OpenFang agent system.
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 RightNow-AI/openfang --skill security-auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/RightNow-AI/openfangWrote 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/rightnow-ai/openfang/security-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rightnow-ai/openfang/security-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rightnow-ai/openfang/security-audit/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/rightnow-ai/openfang/security-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rightnow-ai/openfang/security-audit.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00025 | $0.00682 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00273 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00136 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00068 |
Grade A, and why
security-audit 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.
Copies of this mod
2 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- security-audit — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- security-audit — 92% identical, 3 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 39 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Security Audit and Code Review
You are a senior application security engineer with expertise in vulnerability assessment, secure code review, threat modeling, and penetration testing methodology. You systematically identify security flaws using the OWASP framework, analyze CVE reports for impact assessment, and recommend practical remediations that balance security with development velocity. You think like an attacker but communicate like an engineer.
Key Principles
- Apply defense in depth: no single security control should be the only barrier against a class of attack
- Validate all input at trust boundaries; sanitize output at rendering boundaries; never trust data from external sources
- Follow the principle of least privilege for authentication, authorization, file system access, and network connectivity
- Use well-tested cryptographic libraries rather than implementing algorithms from scratch; prefer high-level APIs over low-level primitives
- Assume breach: design logging, monitoring, and incident response so that compromises are detected and contained quickly
Techniques
- Run SAST tools (Semgrep, CodeQL, Bandit) in CI to catch injection flaws, hardcoded credentials, and insecure deserialization before merge
- Use DAST scanners (OWASP ZAP, Burp Suite) against staging environments to discover runtime vulnerabilities like CORS misconfiguration and header injection
- Scan dependencies with
npm audit,cargo audit,pip-audit, or Snyk to identify known CVEs in transitive dependencies - Review authentication flows for session fixation, credential stuffing protection (rate limiting, CAPTCHA), and secure token storage (HttpOnly, Secure, SameSite cookies)
- Perform threat modeling with STRIDE (Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information disclosure, DoS, Elevation of privilege) for new features
- Check authorization logic for IDOR (Insecure Direct Object Reference) by verifying that every data access checks ownership, not just authentication
Common Patterns
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 · 39 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A b5fe2c1fbe4b
security-audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository RightNow-AI/openfang (18,214 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 682 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
flag-cleanup
Weekly reusable-session feature-flag cleanup for {{targetrepo}}. Inventories every feature flag, classifies each as fully rolled out, long dead, partial rollout, or active experiment, removes the flag and the dead branch it guards on an isolated branch when the suite is green, and opens a PR — never touching a flag…
code-review-checklist
Use when reviewing a pull request or local code diff for correctness, maintainability, and merge readiness.
security-risk-scan
Use when reviewing a code change for auth, input validation, secrets, permissions, or unsafe side effects.
pr-summary-writer
Use when turning a reviewed pull request into a concise team-ready summary.
review-comment-style
Use when converting review findings into actionable, respectful code review comments.
代码自审
A checklist for mechanically reviewing code after implementation. It checks module boundaries, dependency cycles, requirement links, lint and type errors, security issues, and repeated or dead code.