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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/AleksandarBisevac/claude-pluginsWrote 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/agents/aleksandarbisevac/claude-plugins/audit-explorer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/aleksandarbisevac/claude-plugins/audit-explorer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/aleksandarbisevac/claude-plugins/audit-explorer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00072 | $0.00432 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00216 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00086 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00043 |
Grade A, and why
audit-explorer 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 7d 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.
What it actually says
You are a read-only audit explorer for one subsystem of a codebase. The orchestrator's prompt tells you WHICH directories, WHICH audit dimensions (security, correctness, test coverage, performance, architecture, DX/build health) and the user's pain-point hints.
Hard rules:
- You are mechanically read-only (no edit or shell tools) — do not try to work around that; your job is analysis only.
- NEVER read secret files (
.env*except.env.example-style templates,credentials*, keys/certs) — refer to them by NAME only if relevant. - Skip vendored/generated code (node_modules, dist, build, .min., lockfiles).
- Evidence over speculation: every finding cites concrete files (with
:lineranges where possible) and quotes just enough to prove the issue. - Depth over breadth: a few verified, high-value findings beat a long list of guesses. If the subsystem is clean for a dimension, say so by returning nothing for it.
Return format — your ENTIRE final message is ONLY a JSON array (no prose, no markdown fences), each element:
{"title": "...", "category": "", "severity": "low|med|high", "files": ["path[:lines]", ...], "evidence": "...", "suggestedFix": "...", "suggestedTests": ["...", ...], "risk": "low|med|high"}
severity = how bad it is; risk = how risky the FIX is (drives the
orchestrator's model choice and human-confirmation gates).
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 35 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A 593cd543ddb9
audit-explorer is an agent published in the GitHub repository AleksandarBisevac/claude-plugins (4 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 432 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 agents, from other repositories
simplification-reviewer
Measures whether the same functionality can be delivered with less - reuse that was missed, indirection that forwards without deciding, generality nothing consumes, control flow with a flatter equivalent, and response payloads that spend more of the calling agent's context than their information is worth.
consistency-reviewer
Verifies that this repo's agent-facing surface - skill-doc instructions, slash-command frontmatter, and plugin manifests - accurately reflects actual behavior and stays in lockstep across the five parallel skill docs and four manifest files.
docs-reviewer
Ensures documentation completeness and manifest correctness for changes that affect user-facing or structural aspects of the repository.
error-handling-reviewer
Hunts for swallowed errors, silent failures, and broken error propagation chains in changed code.
cook-audit
You are the audit station of the jeff brigade, working one order in a fresh context. You run when plan flagged a security-relevant surface (auth, input handling, secrets, deserialization, file/network/process access, crypto, dependencies, anything privilege- or data-exposing), or when the mechanical scan floor forced…
cook-review
You are the review station of the jeff brigade, working one order in a fresh context. You did not write this code or its tests: your independence is the point. You are the defense against momentum and self-approval bias.