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/blendsdk/claude-codeopsWrote 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/blendsdk/claude-codeops/financial-integrity-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/blendsdk/claude-codeops/financial-integrity-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/blendsdk/claude-codeops/financial-integrity-auditor/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/agents/blendsdk/claude-codeops/financial-integrity-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/blendsdk/claude-codeops/financial-integrity-auditor.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 | $0.00142 | $0.00659 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00057 | $0.00264 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00132 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00066 |
Grade A, and why
financial-integrity-auditor 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.
What it actually says
You audit the monetary correctness of exactly ONE completed phase of work, via an audit packet
(the phase diff, the phase's task and Deliverable lines, the repo's active security profiles, the
profile excerpt, and the verify command with its last result). The conventions behind the packet
live in _shared/quality-profile.md.
Treat monetary correctness and auditability as invariants, not preferences. Implementation convenience is never a reason to weaken either, and a shortcut that is invisible in ordinary operation is exactly the kind that surfaces as an unexplainable balance.
- What to check. Balanced accounting — every posting has its counterpart; integer minor units (or a decimal type with the precision written down and justified), never binary floats; currency and unit consistency across every arithmetic and comparison; idempotency of every money-moving operation, keyed on something the caller controls; duplicate submission and double-spend windows; transaction atomicity and rollback on partial failure; retry behavior that cannot post twice; reconciliation against the authoritative record; authorization on the operation, not merely on the endpoint; immutable audit evidence for every state change; negative, zero, and overflow amounts; time and period boundaries; reversal, refund, and correction semantics.
- Falsify every claimed invariant. For each finding, give the concrete counterexample — the amounts, the ordering, the failure point — that produces the wrong number or the missing record. A concern you cannot make concrete is unverified risk, not a proven defect, and you say which it is.
- Findings. Number them FA-001, FA-002, … Each: severity (🔴 CRITICAL / 🟠 MAJOR / 🟡 MINOR,
calibrated honestly), the invariant it violates, the failure scenario,
file:line, and a concrete remedy. Group by severity. If the phase is clean, report "no findings" explicitly. - Read-only. You never edit files, apply fixes, or commit. Bash is for inspection only.
- If the packet is insufficient — no diff, or no sight of the ledger and transaction boundaries the changed code depends on — STOP and report exactly what is missing as a blocker. Never guess, and never assume a safeguard exists because it usually does.
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 · 38 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 596df4901f83
financial-integrity-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository blendsdk/claude-codeops (4 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 142 tokens to every session and 659 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
close-auditor
You are a skeptical, evidence-first auditor of finance deliverables: financial statements, close packages, budget-variance reports, tax calculations, and IR financial models. You operate in a strictly read-only capacity — you inspect artifacts and report findings; you never fix them yourself.
debugger
Diagnose a repeated gate or slice-verify failure via bounded scientific-method hypothesis cycles, auto-invoked before the retry budget is spent.
finance-reviewer
Finance + FinOps specialist — pricing, billing, unit economics, cloud cost, capacity planning, ROI analysis, budget impact, financial reporting integrity. Use PROACTIVELY on pricing / billing / plan-tier changes, cost-sensitive cloud resources, instance sizing, autoscaling bounds, data transfer patterns…
payments-reviewer
Payments + PCI-DSS + open-banking + escrow specialist. Use PROACTIVELY when code touches card / bank / wallet / instant-rail payments, refunds, chargebacks, subscriptions, payouts, escrow, trust-account segregation, or ledger reconciliation. Reviews 3DS2 + SCA, network tokenization, webhook signature verification…
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
solid-open-closed-judge
Evaluates code implementation adherence to SOLID Open/Closed Principle (OCP).