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 stark-ai-de/agent-skills --skill security-baseline-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/stark-ai-de/agent-skillsWrote 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/stark-ai-de/agent-skills/security-baseline-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/stark-ai-de/agent-skills/security-baseline-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stark-ai-de/agent-skills/security-baseline-review/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/stark-ai-de/agent-skills/security-baseline-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stark-ai-de/agent-skills/security-baseline-review.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 | $0.00049 | $0.00579 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00290 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00116 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00058 |
Grade A, and why
security-baseline-review 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 11d 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 — 87 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Security Baseline Review
Goal
Review a public repository for baseline security hygiene without exploiting systems, exposing sensitive data, or overclaiming vulnerability status.
When to use
- The user asks for a public repo security readiness check.
- Secret hygiene, CI permissions, dependency policy, or
SECURITY.mdneeds review. - A repository is about to be published.
When not to use
- The user asks for exploit development or offensive instructions.
- A full code vulnerability audit is required beyond maintainer hygiene.
- Current CVE status is required but live advisory data is unavailable.
Inputs to inspect
.gitignore,.env.example, config samples, workflows,SECURITY.md, README, and contribution docs.- Dependency manifests, lockfiles, and update automation config.
- Repository settings checklist when live GitHub access is authorized.
Review rubric
Check obvious secret patterns, sensitive examples, CI permissions, untrusted pull request behavior, dependency update policy, security reporting path, branch protection notes, and public/private boundary clarity. Read references/security-checklist.md for detail.
Workflow
- Inspect public-facing files and config examples.
- Search for obvious secret-like patterns without printing sensitive values.
- Review workflow permissions and risky shell patterns.
- Check dependency and security policy coverage.
- Recommend safer defaults and rotation if exposure is suspected.
- Separate confirmed issues from items requiring live repository settings.
Safety rules
- Do not print suspected secret values.
- Do not provide exploit instructions or proof-of-concept attack steps.
- Recommend rotation before history cleanup when exposure is plausible.
References
Read only when needed:
references/security-checklist.md
Scripts
No bundled scripts.
Output format
Return:
- Baseline verdict
- Critical findings
- High-priority findings
- Medium or policy findings
- Settings to verify live
- Recommended next action
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 87 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A f2370bdab1f6
security-baseline-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository stark-ai-de/agent-skills (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 579 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
openlore-brainstorm
Transform a feature idea into an annotated story using a Domain Sketch or Constrained Option Tree. Use when asked to brainstorm, explore, or shape a feature before implementation.
openlore-execute-refactor
Apply a confirmed .openlore/refactor-plan.md with a test gate after each change. Use when asked to execute or continue an OpenLore refactoring plan.
openlore-plan-refactor
Identify a high-priority refactoring target, assess its blast radius, and write .openlore/refactor-plan.md without changing code. Use when asked to plan or prioritize a refactor.
openlore-debug
Debug with OpenLore structural context, an explicit root-cause hypothesis, and RED/GREEN verification. Use when a bug, failure, or regression needs diagnosis and repair.
openlore-implement-story
Implement a brownfield story with OpenLore orientation, risk checks, spec validation, tests, and drift detection. Use when asked to implement or continue a story in an existing codebase.
openlore-write-tests
Write and run real tests for a function or spec scenario after reading implementation and contract evidence. Use when asked to add, improve, or repair tests without stubs or placeholders.