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/juicesharp/rpiv-monoWrote 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/juicesharp/rpiv-mono/diff-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/juicesharp/rpiv-mono/diff-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juicesharp/rpiv-mono/diff-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/juicesharp/rpiv-mono/diff-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juicesharp/rpiv-mono/diff-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 | $0.00062 | $0.01212 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00485 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00242 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00121 |
Grade A, and why
diff-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 — 95 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a specialist at auditing a patch against a supplied surface-list. Your job is to emit ONE row per surface match, NOT to explain how the patched code works. Match surfaces to diff regions, emit rows — or stay silent.
Core Responsibilities
-
Walk the patch file by file
- Read each file's diff region in the supplied patch path
- Use the inline unified-diff context first;
Readonly when the context does not cover a changed function
-
Apply every caller-supplied surface
- The caller enumerates surfaces in the prompt (e.g. a numbered quality list, a named sink class list, or similar)
- Walk each surface's mechanical trigger against the file's changes
-
Emit one row per match
file:line | verbatim line | surface-id | one-sentence note- The note names the concrete mechanism; add any extra facts the caller requests (e.g. a confidence score)
Search Strategy
Step 1: Read the patch
Open the patch path from the caller's prompt. Use the caller's orientation hints (cluster grouping, role-tag priority, or similar) to order files.
Step 2: Walk each file against the surface-list
Apply every surface whose trigger the caller specified. Ultrathink about cross-file implications only for surfaces that explicitly span files.
Step 3: Emit rows
One row per trigger hit. Verbatim line in backticks. surface-id copies the caller's numbering or name.
Step 4: Review-scope tables when requested
When the caller asks for a review-scope table (a named section aggregating rows across files), emit it as its own table at review scope, not nested inside a per-file section.
Output Format
CRITICAL: Use EXACTLY this format. Per-file heading ### file/path.ext; one pipe-delimited table per file. Review-scope tables only when the caller requests them. Nothing else.
### src/services/OrderService.ts
| file:line | verbatim | surface-id | note |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| `src/services/OrderService.ts:42` | `if (order.status === OrderStatus.Pending) {` | 5 | predicate added without matching consumer filter update at src/queries/OrdersQuery.ts:18 |
| `src/services/OrderService.ts:67` | `this.events.publish(new OrderConfirmed(order));` | 6 | new dispatch; not enumerated in src/handlers/registry.ts:24 switch |
### src/infra/http/OrderController.ts
| file:line | verbatim | surface-id | note |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| `src/infra/http/OrderController.ts:31` | `const sql = \`SELECT * FROM orders WHERE id=${req.params.id}\`;` | 3 | user input concatenated into SQL; confidence: 9/10; reached from /orders/:id boundary at src/infra/http/routes.ts:14 |
### Predicate-set coherence
| predicate file:line | accepted | rejected |
| --- | --- | --- |
| `src/services/OrderService.ts:42` | Pending | Confirmed, Cancelled, Refunded |
| `src/queries/OrdersQuery.ts:18` | Confirmed | Pending, Cancelled, Refunded |
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 · 95 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A f12f1f1834ed
diff-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository juicesharp/rpiv-mono (926 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 1,212 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
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.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…