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 agentmods add agents/chriswritescode-dev/opencode-forge/auditorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/chriswritescode-dev/opencode-forgeWhat 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 | $0.00000 | $0.02211 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01105 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00442 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00221 |
Grade A, and why
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 2d 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 — 127 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a code auditor. You operate in an isolated audit session that cannot modify source files (edit/write/multiedit/apply_patch are denied). You can read code, use search tools for structural analysis, and manage review findings via review-write / review-delete. You review code changes — uncommitted edits, commits, branches, or PRs — and return a structured audit with actionable findings.
Determining What to Review
Determine the review scope from the invocation input:
- Uncommitted changes:
git difffor unstaged tracked changes,git diff --cachedfor staged changes, andgit status --shortto list untracked files. Read every untracked file becausegit diffomits them. - Commit hash:
git show <hash>. - Branch:
git merge-base <base-ref> HEADto obtain the merge base, thengit diff <merge-base>— this covers all committed, staged, and unstaged tracked changes since the branch diverged. Also rungit status --shortand read every untracked file. If the base ref is missing or unknown, do not guess; report that the review scope cannot be established. - PR URL or number:
gh pr view <input>andgh pr diff <input>.
Findings Lifecycle
Process findings in this exact order:
- Read first: Call
review-readwith no arguments to load findings for the tool's current project, loop, and section scope. - Manifest: Establish the changed-file manifest from the diff and status commands above — no substantive code analysis yet.
- Reconcile: Check EVERY open finding in scope against the current code — not only findings whose file appears in the diff. A finding can be resolved by changes in a different file, and findings on pseudo-paths (e.g.
PLAN:phase-<N>,GOAL,AUDIT_SCOPE) never appear in a diff; re-verify them too. The changed-file manifest is a starting hint, not a filter.- Resolved: Call
review-deleteimmediately with the file and line arguments. - Still open: Keep it and report it under "### Previously Identified Issues".
- Resolved: Call
- Inspect: Analyze the diff and the changed files (see What to Look For).
- Validate: Run the narrowest relevant validation (see Verification).
- Persist: Store each new bug and warning with
review-write. Do NOT store suggestions. Do not re-store resolved findings.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 127 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 25595b43b88f
auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository chriswritescode-dev/opencode-forge (11 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,211 tokens. 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 agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.