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 s0ld13rr/pentestcode --skill social-engineeringgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/s0ld13rr/pentestcodeWrote 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/s0ld13rr/pentestcode/social-engineering)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/s0ld13rr/pentestcode/social-engineering"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s0ld13rr/pentestcode/social-engineering/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/s0ld13rr/pentestcode/social-engineering"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s0ld13rr/pentestcode/social-engineering.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 | $0.00037 | $0.00607 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00243 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00121 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00061 |
Grade A, and why
playbook-social-engineering 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 2d 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 — 41 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Social Engineering — Phishing, Vishing, Physical
HARD GATE: this playbook requires the RoE to EXPLICITLY name social engineering/physical testing, the exact target population size, and data-handling rules. If the scope is silent → DO NOT run, ask the operator to confirm authorization.
Phishing (GoPhish)
- Pretext selection from OSINT (recon phase): org tools, HR processes, recent events (reorg, new VPN, survey, invoice).
- Infrastructure: own domain similar to org's, SPF/DKIM/DMARC properly set (deliverability), dedicated sending IPs warmed up, URL shorteners avoided (flagged).
- Payload tiers (escalate only if authorized): credential harvest page (clone org login, HTTPS, valid cert) → macro doc → link to landing.
- Campaign metrics: sent / opened / clicked / submitted / creds validated. Report EACH — click-through is the real risk indicator, not submissions.
- Timing: Tue-Thu 09:00-11:00 local typically highest engagement; avoid month-end (finance busy, but BEC tests may target it deliberately — RoE call).
Vishing
- Same pretext as the phishing campaign; call targets who clicked but didn't submit ("IT follow-up").
- OTP/2FA social-engineering: "read me the code you just received" is the highest-impact finding possible — proves full account takeover.
- Record calls ONLY if RoE allows (consent laws vary by jurisdiction — check two-party consent).
Physical
- Tailgating at badge-controlled entrances, badge cloning (Proxmark), lock picking, dumpster diving, USB drops.
- Escort rules and safety: never confrontation, abort word agreed, no bypassing locks that damage property.
- Environmental findings count: whiteboards, unlocked screens, unattended reception, printed creds.
Reporting angle
- Map each success to impact: "phished creds → mailbox access → BEC risk" with ATT&CK T1566/T1534/T1556.
- Compare results by department — one department at 40% submission rate = targeted training recommendation.
- NEVER store harvested real credentials beyond the engagement; hash/redact in report, deliver for reset.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 41 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 98f9e896eaa1
playbook-social-engineering is a skill published in the GitHub repository s0ld13rr/pentestcode (884 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 607 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 2026-10-24.
Other skills, from other repositories
lictor-security-check
Pre-release security audit for ANY project — AI-built or hand-written, web or mobile. Scans the codebase for the full range of real-world risks that get apps breached: leaked API & AI-provider keys, exposed configs/secrets, broken auth & access control (IDOR), injection (SQL/XSS/command), SSRF, open databases & cloud…
lictor-rotate
Walks the user through rotating a leaked API key — step by step, provider-specific. Knows the exact URL to visit, the exact button to click, and how to verify the rotation worked. Supports Stripe, OpenAI, Anthropic, Google Cloud / AI Studio, GitHub, AWS, Slack, Supabase, Firebase, Postmark, and generic OAuth providers.
compliance
Navigate privacy regulations (GDPR, CCPA), review DPAs, and handle data subject requests. Use when reviewing data processing agreements, responding to data subject access or deletion requests, assessing cross-border data transfer requirements, or evaluating privacy compliance.
legal-risk-assessment
Assess and classify legal risks using a severity-by-likelihood framework with escalation criteria. Use when evaluating contract risk, assessing deal exposure, classifying issues by severity, or determining whether a matter needs senior counsel or outside legal review.
canned-responses
Generate templated responses for common legal inquiries and identify when situations require individualized attention. Use when responding to routine legal questions — data subject requests, vendor inquiries, NDA requests, discovery holds — or when managing response templates.
contract-review
Review contracts against your organization's negotiation playbook, flagging deviations and generating redline suggestions. Use when reviewing vendor contracts, customer agreements, or any commercial agreement where you need clause-by-clause analysis against standard positions.