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 UnitOneAI/SecuritySkills --skill dast-configgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/UnitOneAI/SecuritySkillsWrote 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/unitoneai/securityskills/dast-config)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/unitoneai/securityskills/dast-config"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/unitoneai/securityskills/dast-config/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/unitoneai/securityskills/dast-config"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/unitoneai/securityskills/dast-config.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 | $0.00083 | $0.06428 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00033 | $0.02571 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.01286 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00643 |
Grade A, and why
dast-config 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 — 631 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
DAST Tool Configuration
A structured, repeatable process for reviewing Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) tool configurations against OWASP Top 10:2021 and the OWASP Testing Guide v4.2 (WSTG). This skill covers OWASP ZAP configuration, scan policy tuning, active vs. passive scanning, API scanning with OpenAPI import, authenticated scanning, CI/CD integration, scope management, and results deduplication. All findings map to OWASP Top 10 categories and WSTG test IDs.
When to Use
If a target is provided via arguments, focus the review on: $ARGUMENTS
- Initial DAST deployment and scan policy configuration.
- Review of existing DAST integration in CI/CD pipelines.
- Authenticated scanning setup or troubleshooting.
- API security testing configuration (REST, GraphQL).
- DAST results triage workflow design.
- Compliance audits requiring dynamic testing evidence (PCI DSS 6.3.2, SOC 2).
Context
DAST tools test running applications by sending crafted HTTP requests and analyzing responses for vulnerability indicators. Unlike SAST, DAST finds runtime issues: misconfigured headers, authentication flaws, and injection vulnerabilities that survive to deployment. OWASP Testing Guide v4.2 (WSTG) defines 91 test cases across 11 categories -- DAST tools automate a subset of these. OWASP Top 10:2021 provides the risk-based prioritization framework. The challenge is configuration: an unconfigured DAST scan produces noise (thousands of informational findings), misses authenticated surfaces, and may destabilize target environments. Proper tuning transforms DAST from a checkbox exercise into a meaningful security gate.
Process
Step 1: Discovery -- Locate DAST Configurations
Use Glob and Grep to locate DAST tool configurations, scan policies, and CI integration.
Patterns to search:
# OWASP ZAP
**/*zap*
**/zap-*
**/.zap/
**/af-plan*.yaml # ZAP Automation Framework plans
**/zap.yaml
**/zap-baseline*
**/zap-full-scan*
**/zap-api-scan*
# Burp Suite
**/*burp*
**/burp-project*.json
**/burp-config*.json
# Nuclei
**/nuclei*
**/.nuclei-templates/
# General DAST CI
**/.github/workflows/*dast*
**/.github/workflows/*security*
**/.gitlab-ci.yml # Search for dast stage
**/Jenkinsfile*
**/docker-compose*test*
**/docker-compose*security*
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 · 631 lines · 83 tokens per session scan A 3a6270d839bc
dast-config is a skill published in the GitHub repository UnitOneAI/SecuritySkills (85 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 83 tokens to every session and 6,428 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
implementing-devsecops-security-scanning
Integrates Static Application Security Testing (SAST), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST), and Software Composition Analysis (SCA) into CI/CD pipelines using open-source tools. Covers Semgrep for SAST, Trivy for SCA and container scanning, OWASP ZAP for DAST, and Gitleaks for secrets detection. Activates for…
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…
prompt-injection-tester
Red-team an LLM application against prompt injection and jailbreaks using a curated, categorized payload library and canary-based detection, then produce a resilience score. Use when the user asks to "test my chatbot for prompt injection", "check if my AI app is jailbreakable", "red-team my LLM", "evaluate…
codeinspectus-multi-review
Orchestrate an optional bounded multi-agent review of selected CodeInspectus findings while separating deterministic findings, agent interpretations, hypotheses, reproduction evidence, and exact-prior rescan proof. Use only when a user explicitly requests multi-agent security review.
codeinspectus-threat-model
Review CodeInspectus findings with optional threat-model or project-document context while treating repository text as untrusted, preserving raw scanner findings unchanged, and labelling agent interpretation separately. Use only when a user explicitly asks to add architectural, business, or knowledge-base context to…
gauntlex:doctor
Full GAUNTLEX environment health check — model reachable, ChromaDB writable, AVF fixtures pass, no unexpected outbound network (air-gap verification). Use before first run or when debugging failures.