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 sbom-tool/gh-guard --skill security-findingsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sbom-tool/gh-guardWrote 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/sbom-tool/gh-guard/security-findings)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sbom-tool/gh-guard/security-findings"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sbom-tool/gh-guard/security-findings/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/sbom-tool/gh-guard/security-findings"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sbom-tool/gh-guard/security-findings.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 | $0.00025 | $0.01748 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00874 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00350 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00175 |
Grade A, and why
security-findings 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 173 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Security Findings — SARIF Triage and Response
Multiple gh-guard components produce security findings: CodeQL (static analysis), Scorecard (supply chain posture), cargo-deny (dependency policy), and cargo-audit (vulnerability advisories). This skill covers how to consume, triage, and act on these findings.
Finding Sources
| Source | Format | Destination | Update Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| CodeQL | SARIF | GitHub Security > Code scanning | Push to main, PRs, weekly |
| Scorecard | SARIF + JSON | GitHub Security > Code scanning + api.securityscorecards.dev | Push to main, weekly |
| cargo-deny | CI output | PR checks (fail/pass) | Every PR |
| cargo-audit | CI output | PR checks (fail/pass) | Every PR |
| Dependabot | Alerts + PRs | GitHub Security > Dependabot | Continuous |
GitHub Security Tab
All SARIF-producing tools upload to GitHub's Code Scanning interface:
- Security > Code scanning alerts — consolidated view of all findings
- Each alert has: severity, description, file location, rule ID
- Alerts track across commits — if you fix the issue, the alert auto-closes
- Dismiss with reason: false positive, won't fix, used in tests
Triage Workflow
Priority Matrix
| Severity | Source | SLA | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical/High | cargo-audit (CVE) | Fix within 7 days | Upgrade dependency or apply patch |
| Critical/High | CodeQL | Fix within 14 days | Code change to resolve the finding |
| Medium | Any | Fix in next release | Plan the fix, track in issues |
| Low/Informational | Any | Backlog | Review periodically |
| Scorecard check | Scorecard | Best effort | Improve configuration |
Dismissal Policy
Legitimate reasons to dismiss a finding:
- False positive — the tool's analysis is incorrect for your context
- Won't fix — accepted risk with documented justification
- Used in tests — finding is in test code only, not production
- Not applicable — the code path is unreachable or the dependency is unused
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 · 173 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A 4db9b5c639b8
security-findings is a skill published in the GitHub repository sbom-tool/gh-guard (15 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 1,748 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
apiiro-mcp-secure-prompt
Use the Apiiro MCP tool apiirosecureprompt when Apiiro MCP is configured in the client and the user wants security guidance added to a coding task before implementation. Trigger on secure-prompt via MCP, or when the user asks for security-aware prompt enhancement before coding (auth, new APIs, persistence, secrets…
implementing-github-advanced-security-for-code-scanning
Configure GitHub Advanced Security with CodeQL to perform automated static analysis and vulnerability detection across repositories at enterprise scale.
bob-egress
List, add, test, enable, disable, or remove Hacker Bob egress profiles from Codex.
detecting-typosquatting-packages
Flag misspelled, brandjacked, and typosquatted package names across npm, PyPI, and crates.io before installation using edit-distance, keyboard-proximity, and known-target corpus matching with typomania, OSSGadget, and pypi-scan.
security-expert
Expert-level application security, OWASP Top 10, penetration testing, and security best practices. Use when the user mentions OWASP, pentesting, appsec, vulnerability, encryption, or authentication, or when the task involves Security Principles, OWASP Top 10, Security Domains, or Broken Access Control.
codeinspectus-fix-one
Investigate and remediate exactly one user-selected CodeInspectus finding with evidence-gated reproduction, a separately approved minimal patch, focused regression testing, and an exact-prior-scan rescan. Use when a user asks an agent to examine, reproduce, fix, or verify one CodeInspectus finding without batching…