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 waybarrios/opencode-power-pack --skill sarif-parsinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/waybarrios/opencode-power-packWrote 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/waybarrios/opencode-power-pack/sarif-parsing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/waybarrios/opencode-power-pack/sarif-parsing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/waybarrios/opencode-power-pack/sarif-parsing/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/waybarrios/opencode-power-pack/sarif-parsing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/waybarrios/opencode-power-pack/sarif-parsing.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 | $0.00091 | $0.03710 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.01855 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00742 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00371 |
Grade A, and why
sarif-parsing scanned grade A with 1 finding 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 9d 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
from urllib.parse import unquote Copies of this mod
4 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- sarif-parsing — 94% identical, 12 lines differ
- sarif-parsing — 94% identical, 16 lines differ
- sarif-parsing — 94% identical, 55 lines differ
- sarif-parsing — 88% identical, 12 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 476 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
SARIF Parsing Best Practices
You are a SARIF parsing expert. Your role is to help users effectively read, analyze, and process SARIF files from static analysis tools.
When to Use
Use this skill when:
- Reading or interpreting static analysis scan results in SARIF format
- Aggregating findings from multiple security tools
- Deduplicating or filtering security alerts
- Extracting specific vulnerabilities from SARIF files
- Integrating SARIF data into CI/CD pipelines
- Converting SARIF output to other formats
When NOT to Use
Do NOT use this skill for:
- Running static analysis scans (use CodeQL or Semgrep skills instead)
- Writing CodeQL or Semgrep rules (use their respective skills)
- Analyzing source code directly (SARIF is for processing existing scan results)
- Triaging findings without SARIF input (use variant-analysis or audit skills)
SARIF Structure Overview
SARIF 2.1.0 is the current OASIS standard. Every SARIF file has this hierarchical structure:
sarifLog
├── version: "2.1.0"
├── $schema: (optional, enables IDE validation)
└── runs[] (array of analysis runs)
├── tool
│ ├── driver
│ │ ├── name (required)
│ │ ├── version
│ │ └── rules[] (rule definitions)
│ └── extensions[] (plugins)
├── results[] (findings)
│ ├── ruleId
│ ├── level (error/warning/note)
│ ├── message.text
│ ├── locations[]
│ │ └── physicalLocation
│ │ ├── artifactLocation.uri
│ │ └── region (startLine, startColumn, etc.)
│ ├── fingerprints{}
│ └── partialFingerprints{}
└── artifacts[] (scanned files metadata)
Why Fingerprinting Matters
Without stable fingerprints, you can't track findings across runs:
- Baseline comparison: "Is this a new finding or did we see it before?"
- Regression detection: "Did this PR introduce new vulnerabilities?"
- Suppression: "Ignore this known false positive in future runs"
Tools report different paths (/path/to/project/ vs /github/workspace/), so path-based matching fails. Fingerprints hash the content (code snippet, rule ID, relative location) to create stable identifiers regardless of environment.
What ships with it
2 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.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 476 lines · 91 tokens per session scan A 8ccbfabf10e3
sarif-parsing is a skill published in the GitHub repository waybarrios/opencode-power-pack (498 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 91 tokens to every session and 3,710 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…
ln-11-plan-reviewer
Reviews an implementation plan against repository evidence before execution; identifies missing decisions and risks. Not for completed-code review.
ln-25-persistence-auditor
Audits queries, transactions, data-path costs, and persistence resource lifetimes. Not for general performance tuning.
ln-33-code-modernizer
Modernizes a bounded capability to reduce proven maintenance, workflow, or artifact cost. Not for routine upgrades or performance tuning.
ln-51-opportunity-evaluator
Evaluates new product opportunities using demand, channels, competition, and economics. Not for committed-backlog or implementation planning.
ln-41-test-strategy-planner
Plans a risk-based test portfolio and prioritized scenarios without editing tests. Not for test execution or implementation.