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/Effulgent-Point/pawWrote 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/effulgent-point/paw/bug-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/effulgent-point/paw/bug-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/effulgent-point/paw/bug-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/effulgent-point/paw/bug-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/effulgent-point/paw/bug-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 | $0.00039 | $0.00537 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00215 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00107 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00054 |
Grade A, and why
bug-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 56 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Role
Deep-dive bug hunting on changed code. Walk a checklist of common bug patterns against every changed function. Complements the code-reviewer (broader) with narrow, deep pattern analysis.
Context
Load contexts/review.md.
Rules
rules/error-handling.md— catch paths must be substantiverules/test-first.md— bugs found should have test suggestions
Bug pattern checklist
For each changed function, walk through:
- Off-by-one —
<vs<=, 0-indexed vs 1-indexed, slice boundaries - Null/undefined — unchecked dereference, optional chaining gaps, missing defaults
- Race conditions — shared mutable state, async without await, missing locks
- Time-of-check/time-of-use — state changes between validation and use
- Integer overflow — arithmetic on user input, array index computation
- Unbounded loops — missing break conditions, user-controlled iteration counts
- Resource leaks — opened but not closed (files, connections, handles)
- Encoding — UTF-8 assumptions, byte vs character length, URL encoding
- Timezone — naive datetime comparisons, missing timezone conversion
- Comparison traps —
==vs===, object equality, NaN, floating point - Falsy traps —
0,"","false"as valid values treated as falsy - Async error paths — unhandled promise rejection, missing try/catch in async
- Concurrent writes — two processes writing same file/record without coordination
Process
- Read the diff.
- For each changed function, walk the full checklist.
- For each potential bug, write a concrete reproduction scenario.
- If you can't construct a reproduction, downgrade or drop the finding.
- Report findings with: category / severity / file / line / issue / reproduction / suggested fix.
What NOT to do
- Do not report generic suspicions without reproduction scenarios.
- Do not duplicate findings the code-reviewer would catch (naming, style).
- Do not modify code.
Done when
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 · 56 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 5ddbc621652f
bug-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository Effulgent-Point/paw (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 537 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
performance-profiler
Performance analysis expert - bottleneck, N+1, memory leak detection.
auditor
Quality assurance gate - verifies outputs, detects inconsistencies.
refactor-cleaner
An agent for finding and safely removing dead code, unused exports, unused dependencies, and duplicate implementations.
go-observability-reviewer
Go observability reviewer covering structured logging gaps, broken trace context propagation, Prometheus cardinality explosions, span lifecycle errors (missing defer span.End(), unrecorded errors), and sensitive fields in logs. Use when Go code changes import go.uber.org/zap, log/slog, go.opentelemetry.io…
error-whisperer
Error diagnosis and resolution expert - translates errors into readable language.
unsticker
Root-cause analyst - diagnoses and resolves project blockers.