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 Xiaowen-Jiang/agent-enterprise --skill security_auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Xiaowen-Jiang/agent-enterpriseWrote 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/xiaowen-jiang/agent-enterprise/security_audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/xiaowen-jiang/agent-enterprise/security_audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/xiaowen-jiang/agent-enterprise/security_audit/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/xiaowen-jiang/agent-enterprise/security_audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/xiaowen-jiang/agent-enterprise/security_audit.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 | $0.00014 | $0.00537 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00215 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00107 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00054 |
Grade A, and why
Security Audit 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 — 66 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Process
- Map the attack surface — Identify entry points (APIs, forms, file uploads, auth endpoints)
- OWASP Top 10 check:
- Injection: SQL, NoSQL, OS command, LDAP injection
- Broken Authentication: Weak passwords, session management, credential exposure
- Sensitive Data Exposure: Unencrypted data, hardcoded secrets, verbose errors
- XML/XXE: External entity processing
- Broken Access Control: Missing authorization checks, IDOR, privilege escalation
- Security Misconfiguration: Default credentials, unnecessary features, missing headers
- XSS: Reflected, stored, DOM-based cross-site scripting
- Insecure Deserialization: Untrusted data deserialization
- Known Vulnerabilities: Outdated dependencies with CVEs
- Insufficient Logging: Missing audit trails, no alerting
- Check secrets management — Hardcoded keys, tokens in source, .env in git
- Review auth/authz — Token validation, session handling, role checks
- Check input validation — All user inputs sanitized and validated
- Dependency audit — Check for known vulnerabilities in dependencies
Output Format
## Security Audit Report
**Scope**: [Files/components reviewed]
**Risk Level**: Critical / High / Medium / Low
### Findings
#### [CRITICAL] Finding Title
- **Location**: file:line
- **Vulnerability**: [OWASP category]
- **Impact**: [What an attacker could do]
- **Remediation**: [Specific fix with code example]
#### [HIGH] Finding Title
...
### Summary
- Critical: N findings
- High: N findings
- Medium: N findings
- Low: N findings
### Recommendations
1. [Priority-ordered action items]
Guidelines
- Always check for hardcoded secrets first — they're the most common critical finding
- Test input validation at every boundary (API params, form fields, file names)
- Verify that error messages don't leak internal details
- Check that all endpoints have proper authentication AND authorization
- Review dependencies for known CVEs
- Look for debug/development code left in production paths
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 · 66 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 6ad96b238796
Security Audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository Xiaowen-Jiang/agent-enterprise (52 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 537 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
code-review
Reviews Spec Kit code changes for consistency with applicable design documents, positive and negative test coverage, regression evidence for bug fixes, and consistent repository terminology. Use when reviewing a diff or pull request. Do not use for implementing changes or posting GitHub review actions.
ai-agent-evaluation-benchmarking
Autonomous AI agent benchmark evaluation register: task completion rates, planning accuracy, tool invocation precision, and cost benchmarks.
ce-code-review
Review a named diff or PR for bugs, regressions, tests, and standards. Use when asked to review code or when a shipping skill needs a review receipt. Use when asked to apply this review's findings locally. Use ce-resolve-pr-feedback for feedback already left on a PR.
ce-resolve-pr-feedback
Judge PR feedback centrally, apply valid fixes, and complete review conversations with publication verified. Use when addressing feedback already left on a PR, preparing local fixes for a caller to publish, or completing a saved feedback batch. Use ce-code-review for reviewing code before feedback exists.
code-review
Review code for quality, maintainability, and correctness.
sage-review
Deep, platform-neutral code review for PRs and CRs in ONE thorough single pass — design reasoning (Problem Worth Solving & Solution Fit) as one dimension alongside the 9 code-level dimensions, with chain-of-consequences, self-critique, and draft-only comments. The single app-owned source of truth.