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 seqra/opentaint --skill debug-rulegit 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/debug-rule)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/seqra/opentaint/debug-rule"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/seqra/opentaint/debug-rule/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/seqra/opentaint/debug-rule"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/seqra/opentaint/debug-rule.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 | $0.00040 | $0.01194 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00478 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00239 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00119 |
Grade A, and why
debug-rule 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 66 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Skill: Debug Rule
Diagnose why a rule or approximation behaves unexpectedly on a model by tracing where taint is dropped, and decide who owns the fix: the rule, a missing library model, or the engine.
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 directoryrule(required) — the one rule whose sample or flow routes taint through the code under test, as<ruleSetRelativePath>.yaml:<shortId>. For an approximation, the rule whose sample routes taint through the approximated methodmodel(required) — the project model where the behavior shows up
Workflow
1. Reproduce and localize the kill
Reproduce the exact run that showed the problem — same model, rulesets, and applied approximation dirs — and trace where taint dies with a fact-reachability run. Run it directly as a foreground, blocking command and wait for exit — never background it or use Monitor:
opentaint test rule reachability <rule> \
--project-model <model> \
-o <results-dir>/report.sarif \
--ruleset builtin --ruleset .opentaint/rules \
--passthrough-approximations .opentaint/pass-through \
--dataflow-approximations .opentaint/dataflow
<results-dir> is .opentaint/test-results/<name> for a test model, .opentaint/results for the main scan. The per-instruction facts are in the sibling <results-dir>/debug-ifds-fact-reachability.sarif, not the -o file — the -o SARIF only shows whether the rule fired. Read that sibling to find the kill:
- a missed detection (a positive that won't pass, or a flow absent from a scan) — confirm a fact exists at the source; if none, the gap is in
pattern-sources, not the flow. Otherwise walk the facts to the last instruction still carrying it and the first where it's gone — that gap is the kill - a spurious detection (a negative that fires) — the reverse: find where a fact appears with no tainted input reaching it
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 · 66 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A cf2ce90c8012
debug-rule is a skill published in the GitHub repository seqra/opentaint (163 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 1,194 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
develop-gutter-navigation-feature
End-to-end workflow for adding or repairing a navigation gutter / line marker in the explyt/spring-plugin repository: the two independent provider entry points, the lazy-targets contract of NavigationGutterIconBuilder, module resolution and search scope for library PSI, honest empty-state wording, target renderers for…
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, typed, and labeled one following the repository issue…
coding-guard
Compact coding guidelines for the explyt/spring-plugin repository - covers process rules (think first, simplicity, surgical changes), module layout, IntelliJ Platform threading and PSI rules, inspection and test conventions, message bundles, statistics tracking, and PR hygiene. You must call this skill before any code…
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.
github-bugs-triage
Triages the open bug queue of the explyt/spring-plugin GitHub repository: fetches the oldest open issues of type Bug plus compatibility reports, refines titles, suggests labels, missing issue types and priorities with evidence, detects duplicates, and writes a structured triage table. Use when asked to triage…
review-statistic-coverage
Usage-statistics coverage check for explyt/spring-plugin code reviews — verify that new user-visible features (quick fixes, intentions, gutter actions, completions, actions, tool-window controls, wizard steps) register usage via StatisticService and StatisticActionId. Use when reviewing a diff or PR that adds or…