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 agentmods add skills/seqra/opentaint/analyze-findingsnpx skills add seqra/opentaint --skill analyze-findingsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/seqra/opentaintWrote 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/seqra/opentaint/analyze-findings)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/seqra/opentaint/analyze-findings"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/seqra/opentaint/analyze-findings.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00024 | $0.01282 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00641 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00256 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00128 |
Grade A, and why
analyze-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 6d 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 — 85 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Skill: Analyze Findings
A finding file bundles all of one rule's results. Read each result's code flow, split the bundle into distinct vulnerabilities, and give each a TP/FP verdict on its own evidence
Inputs
Provided by the caller, fall back to the default value when omitted. Ask back only when a required input is missing and has no sensible default
project-root(optional) — root of the target project. Opentaint keeps all analysis artifacts under the fixed<project-root>/.opentaint/directory, so every.opentaint/...path below resolves there. Default: current directorylanguage(required) — target language for this project and language-specific instructionsfindings(required) — the finding file(s) to triage, each.opentaint/tracking/findings/<name>.yamlbundling one rule's SARIF results insarif_hashes
Workflow
1. Reconcile before judging
A finding whose notes open with a reconcile line is a rescan result under a rule whose other findings are already triaged — most often the same vulnerability with a shifted hash, not a new one. Before judging it fresh, read the rule's already-triaged finding files and compare flows (source → sink, same essential path): if one matches, move this finding's sarif_hashes into that finding, drop this file, and let the inherited verdict stand — don't re-judge a flow already triaged. Only when no triaged finding matches do you treat it as new and continue below.
2. One result at a time — STOP checklist
For each hash in the bundle, before any verdict, read its raw result from .opentaint/results/report.sarif:
- find its SARIF result via
sarif_hashes— each entry is the leading 16 chars of that result'svulnerabilitySourceSinkHash/vulnerabilityWithTraceHashfingerprint, so match it against the result'sfingerprints/partialFingerprints— then read the rawcodeFlows[] - walk every step, source → hops → sink, confirming it's the same tainted value end to end; confirm the flow against the application source (the built project's own sources under
.opentaint/project/sources/) and dependency code, not the trace text alone - judge each result on its own trace — no verdict shared across results just because they share the rule
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 85 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 116cf47af821
analyze-findings is a skill published in the GitHub repository seqra/opentaint (153 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 1,282 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
plugin-code-review-orchestrated
Orchestrates a code review of the spring-plugin repository through scope/context passes, routing, domain reviewer subskills, and per-artifact validation. Use when asked to review a PR, diff, commit, branch, module, or file set, to run a full orchestrated review, or to produce a validated review report.
github-issue-manager
Classifies a user request as Bug, Compatibility, Feature, Question, or Task for the explyt/spring-plugin GitHub repo, lightly researches the relevant codebase, searches similar existing issues, and either reports an existing issue or creates a correctly titled and labeled one following the repository issue forms. Use…
review-async-lifecycle
Normative reviewer for EDT safety, coroutines, cancellation, read/write actions, disposal, listeners and async lifecycle in the explyt spring-plugin. Use during orchestrated code review when the diff touches threading, background tasks, read or write actions, listeners, MessageBus, Disposable ownership or progress…
review-core-correctness
Normative mandatory reviewer for correctness, contracts, architecture sanity, UX behavior, code quality and tests in the explyt spring-plugin codebase. Use during orchestrated code review of a PR, diff, commit or branch, or when asked to review correctness, logic, architecture or test coverage of plugin changes.
review-findings-validator
Normative per-artifact validator: reads exactly one reviewer artifact, re-verifies every claim against real source code, classifies findings as TP, FP, or Need more data, and writes exactly one validated artifact. Use during the validation wave of an orchestrated code review, when asked to validate reviewer findings…
review-persistence-security-resources
Normative reviewer for persistence, settings, secrets, logging hygiene, resources, caches, cross-platform behavior and long-lived state in the explyt/spring-plugin IntelliJ plugin. Use when reviewing changes that touch PersistentStateComponent, settings UI, credentials, caches, service fields, logging, file paths…