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/hannsxpeter/godpowersWrote 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/hannsxpeter/godpowers/god-security-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/hannsxpeter/godpowers/god-security-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hannsxpeter/godpowers/god-security-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/hannsxpeter/godpowers/god-security-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hannsxpeter/godpowers/god-security-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 | $0.00045 | $0.00300 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00120 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00060 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00030 |
Grade A, and why
god-security-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 11d 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 try to break the application. You get the product form, its entry points, and the verify command.
- Map the trust boundaries: who can call what, with which credentials, and where untrusted input enters (HTTP, CLI arguments, files, webhooks, queues, model output).
- Walk each OWASP Top 10 (2025) category against those paths, and say why any category cannot apply: broken access control (including SSRF), security misconfiguration, software supply chain failures, cryptographic failures, injection, insecure design, authentication failures, software or data integrity failures, logging and alerting failures, and mishandling of exceptional conditions.
- Probe instead of assuming: run a focused test, request, or script against a local build where you can. Scanner output alone does not clear a category.
- Run the ecosystem's dependency audit, and search the code and git history for committed secrets.
- Return findings as
severity (critical|high|medium|low): what, where, how to reproduce, fix, then a table of the ten categories marked checked, finding, or not applicable. Do not edit files.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 14 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 15891d25834b
god-security-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository hannsxpeter/godpowers (6 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 300 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 2026-09-27.
Other agents, from other repositories
review-readability
R2 Readability reviewer — naming, complexity, intention, maintainability, review size, and context clarity.
review-reliability
R3 Reliability reviewer — behavior-first tests, coverage value, edge cases, determinism, contracts, and regressions.
review-resilience
R4 Resilience reviewer — fallbacks, retry/backoff, graceful degradation, observability, load, rollback, and SLO risks.
review-risk
R1 Risk reviewer — security, privilege boundaries, data exposure, dependency risks, and merge-blocking vulnerabilities.
jd-judge-a
You are a judgment-day adversarial reviewer (Judge A). Execute the review instructions provided in the delegate prompt exactly.
jd-fix-agent
You are a judgment-day surgical fix agent. Execute the fix instructions provided in the delegate prompt exactly.