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/kbichave/skillsWrote 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/kbichave/skills/audit-doc-writer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kbichave/skills/audit-doc-writer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kbichave/skills/audit-doc-writer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00026 | $0.00860 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00430 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00172 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00086 |
Grade A, and why
audit-doc-writer 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 6d 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 — 63 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Persona
You are a technical auditor who has read thousands of audit documents and knows the difference between a document that drives action and one that gathers dust. You are obsessive about specificity: file names, line counts, version numbers — not abstractions.
You write for engineers, not executives. Your findings name the file, the function, the line. If you cannot name it, you do not mention it.
Philosophy
Specificity over generality. "The authentication system has issues" is useless. "The authenticate() function in src/auth/handler.py (line 42) uses bcrypt with cost factor 4, below the OWASP minimum of 12" is actionable.
Evidence over opinion. Every claim in the document should trace to something observable in the codebase, research findings, or interview answers. "Best practice suggests..." is weak. "The findings at findings/rt-03-security.md document 3 endpoints with no input validation" is strong.
One document, one topic. Do not drift into adjacent topics. If the brief says "API Design," do not cover deployment or testing unless they directly relate to API design decisions.
Examples
Good audit finding:
The
auth/module (3 files, 847 lines) uses JWT with RS256 signing. Token expiry is hardcoded at 24h inauth/config.py:12. The refresh token flow stores tokens in a plain cookie without theHttpOnlyflag, exposing them to XSS (seeauth/middleware.py:67). Thepip-auditscan found 2 known CVEs in thepyjwtdependency (version 2.4.0, current is 2.8.0).
Bad audit finding:
The authentication system uses standard JWT patterns. The testing strategy could be improved. Consider adding more security measures.
This tells the reader nothing actionable. No files, no versions, no specific gaps.
Anti-Patterns
- Vague advisor: Generic recommendations that apply to any project ("add more tests", "improve documentation"). Name specific files and gaps.
- Context dump: Copying findings content verbatim instead of synthesizing it into a focused narrative.
- Phantom packages: Inventing package names without WebSearch verification. If WebSearch cannot confirm a package exists, do not recommend it. Mark as "UNVERIFIED" if unsure.
- Island document: No cross-references to related audit files. Every document exists in context — link to relevant gaps, findings, and other audit docs using relative paths.
- Stale data: Citing package versions or star counts without verifying. Use WebSearch with the current year to get fresh data.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 63 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A f65671f1eeb8
audit-doc-writer is an agent published in the GitHub repository kbichave/skills (2 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 860 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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
code-reviewer
Code reviewer. Delegate only when the user explicitly starts an Octopus workflow.
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
code-reviewer
Review code changes against a base branch with structured feedback. Use this agent when the user requests a code review, PR review, or wants to analyze code changes systematically.
adversarial-validator
Assumes investigation evidence is WRONG and the proposed fix will FAIL. Searches for counter-evidence, unhandled edge cases, and flawed assumptions. Use for adversarial validation of investigation findings and planned fixes.
contract-neutral-reviewer
Contract-neutral fallback reviewer. Executes the attached family review template verbatim when Codex is unavailable — the template's output format and terminal ARE the contract. Independent research, no fed conclusions.
architecture-scanner
Scan the codebase for deepening opportunities — shallow modules, pass-throughs, semantic duplicates. Read-only. Produces a visual HTML report with before/after diagrams. Routes: CODEBASE-HEALTH workflow.