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 stefaniuk/loadout --skill sharp-edgesgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/stefaniuk/loadoutWrote 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/stefaniuk/loadout/sharp-edges)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/stefaniuk/loadout/sharp-edges"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stefaniuk/loadout/sharp-edges/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/stefaniuk/loadout/sharp-edges"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stefaniuk/loadout/sharp-edges.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 | $0.00074 | $0.02582 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.01033 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00516 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00258 |
Grade A, and why
sharp-edges 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.
This is a copy
91% identical to sharp-edges — 12 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 294 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Sharp Edges Analysis
Evaluates whether APIs, configurations, and interfaces are resistant to developer misuse. Identifies designs where the "easy path" leads to insecurity.
When to Use
- Reviewing API or library design decisions
- Auditing configuration schemas for dangerous options
- Evaluating cryptographic API ergonomics
- Assessing authentication/authorization interfaces
- Reviewing any code that exposes security-relevant choices to developers
When NOT to Use
- Implementation bugs (use standard code review)
- Business logic flaws (use domain-specific analysis)
- Performance optimization (different concern)
Agent
The sharp-edges-analyzer agent runs the full sharp edges analysis workflow autonomously. Use it when you want a dedicated analysis of APIs, configurations, or interfaces for misuse resistance and footgun potential. The agent follows the four-phase workflow (Surface Identification, Edge Case Probing, Threat Modeling, Validate Findings) and reads language-specific references on demand.
Core Principle
The pit of success: Secure usage should be the path of least resistance. If developers must understand cryptography, read documentation carefully, or remember special rules to avoid vulnerabilities, the API has failed.
Rationalizations to Reject
| Rationalization | Why It's Wrong | Required Action |
|---|---|---|
| "It's documented" | Developers don't read docs under deadline pressure | Make the secure choice the default or only option |
| "Advanced users need flexibility" | Flexibility creates footguns; most "advanced" usage is copy-paste | Provide safe high-level APIs; hide primitives |
| "It's the developer's responsibility" | Blame-shifting; you designed the footgun | Remove the footgun or make it impossible to misuse |
| "Nobody would actually do that" | Developers do everything imaginable under pressure | Assume maximum developer confusion |
| "It's just a configuration option" | Config is code; wrong configs ship to production | Validate configs; reject dangerous combinations |
| "We need backwards compatibility" | Insecure defaults can't be grandfather-claused | Deprecate loudly; force migration |
What ships with it
18 files 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.
- agents/openai.yaml 239 B
- assets/trail-of-bits-mark.svg 3.0 KB
- references/auth-patterns.md 6.8 KB
- references/case-studies.md 8.0 KB
- references/config-patterns.md 9.5 KB
- references/crypto-apis.md 5.2 KB
- references/lang-c.md 5.5 KB
- references/lang-csharp.md 7.2 KB
- references/lang-go.md 6.5 KB
- references/lang-java.md 6.7 KB
- references/lang-javascript.md 6.8 KB
- references/lang-kotlin.md 6.6 KB
- references/lang-php.md 6.0 KB
- references/lang-python.md 6.5 KB
- references/lang-ruby.md 6.1 KB
- references/lang-rust.md 6.4 KB
- references/lang-swift.md 6.1 KB
- references/language-specific.md 13 KB
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 · 294 lines · 74 tokens per session scan A 3b69a709c2f8
sharp-edges is a skill published in the GitHub repository stefaniuk/loadout (1 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 74 tokens to every session and 2,582 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to sharp-edges, differing in 12 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Review pull requests for repository fit, meaningful value, trustworthy provenance, differentiation, and maintainability in awesome-copilot.
spec-kitty-implement-review
Orchestrate the implement-review loop for Spec Kitty work packages using any configured agent. Covers agent dispatch, state transitions, rejection cycles, arbiter escalation, and dependency-aware sequencing across all 13 supported coding agents. Triggers: "implement and review WPs", "run the implement-review loop"…
spec-kitty-mission-review
Review a fully merged Spec Kitty mission post-merge (all WPs done/approved) to verify spec→code fidelity, FR coverage, drift, risks, and security. Triggers: "review the merged mission", "post-merge mission review", "verify the completed mission", "audit the mission implementation", "mission-level acceptance review"…
spec-kitty-runtime-review
Review runtime-owned outputs using the Spec Kitty review workflow surface, then direct approval or rejection with structured feedback. Triggers: "review this work package", "check runtime output", "approve this step", "review WP", "is this WP ready to approve", "check this implementation". Does NOT handle: setup-only…
code-review-csharp
Perform structured code reviews of C# source code covering naming conventions, performance, security, readability, and .NET best practices. Trigger phrases include "review this C# code", "check my C# for best practices", "analyze this C# class", "find issues in my C# code".
mcp-server-review
Review a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server implementation against the 2026-07-28 protocol revision, which removed the initialize handshake and Mcp-Session-Id and made the protocol stateless. Use when the user asks to review, audit, upgrade or migrate an MCP server, asks whether their MCP server is spec compliant…