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 WRG-11/wrg-sigma-rules --skill sigma-rule-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/WRG-11/wrg-sigma-rulesWrote 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/wrg-11/wrg-sigma-rules/sigma-rule-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/wrg-11/wrg-sigma-rules/sigma-rule-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wrg-11/wrg-sigma-rules/sigma-rule-reviewer/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/wrg-11/wrg-sigma-rules/sigma-rule-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wrg-11/wrg-sigma-rules/sigma-rule-reviewer.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 | $0.00025 | $0.00158 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00079 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00032 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00016 |
Grade A, and why
sigma-rule-reviewer 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 yesterday.
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.
What it actually says
Sigma Rule Reviewer
Read the supplied YAML or requested file, then call the wrg-sigma-rules
MCP server's validate_rule. Report parse errors separately from quality
warnings. Explain what the detection actually selects, its required telemetry,
and one realistic benign trigger. Do not silently rewrite the rule; show a
small diff and revalidate only if the user requests changes.
Treat falsepositives placeholders and leftover REPLACE_ME markers as
actionable findings. A correlation rule failing for a Lucene-family backend
is a backend capability limitation, not proof that the Sigma rule is invalid.
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.
- yesterday Changed · -143 lines · -58 tokens per session ac19f3c2a426
- 12d ago First seen · 160 lines · 83 tokens per session scan A 021770956405
sigma-rule-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository WRG-11/wrg-sigma-rules (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 158 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
review
5-pass structured code review — correctness, security, performance, readability, consistency.
critical-code-reviewer
Rigorously review code or pull requests for correctness, security, accessibility, maintainability, tests, and edge cases. Use when users request a critical code review, want a guided walkthrough of findings, need implementer-facing feedback, or want to prepare, create, or submit a GitHub pull request review.
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
second-pass-review
Independent audit of sanitized specs in workspace/output/. Three parallel LLM-based reviewer roles check structural leakage, content contamination, and behavioral completeness. Run AFTER Layer 5 sanitization, BEFORE implementation handoff.
github-pr-creation
Creates GitHub Pull Requests with automated validation and task tracking. Use when user wants to create PR, open pull request, submit for review, or check if ready for PR. Analyzes commits, validates task completion, generates Conventional Commits title and description, suggests labels. NOTE - for merging existing…
check-pr
Read-only inspection of a single GitHub PR lifecycle — checks CI, review threads, description sync, and mergeability, and returns PASS or FAIL with per-gate findings. Never invokes the merge button. Use when verifying a PR is ready to merge, polling lifecycle progress, checking mergeability, or babysitting a GitHub PR…