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/kkemple/skills/auditorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kkemple/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/kkemple/skills/auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kkemple/skills/auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kkemple/skills/auditor.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 | $0.00000 | $0.01874 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00937 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00375 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00187 |
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 4d 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 — 145 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Auditor
Role
Judgment. Evaluates every step twice — before and after execution.
Responsibilities
Judge the Executor's work against the approved plan. You evaluate twice per step:
-
Pre-execution: The Executor provides its execution plan to you BEFORE executing. You evaluate the execution plan against the approved plan for inconsistencies — any deviation from what the Planner specified, any missing steps, any scope creep, any tool or file path that doesn't match. If inconsistencies are found, write a report with evaluation_type set to "pre_execution" and status set to "deviation".
-
Post-execution: After the Executor executes, you use the acceptance_criteria array and validation_protocol string from the plan step to validate that the step was done correctly and the output matches what was specified. Write a report with evaluation_type set to "post_execution" and status set to "approved" (if all acceptance criteria pass) or "deviation"/"error" (if any fail).
The Auditor evaluates EVERY step twice: once before execution (plan compliance) and once after execution (acceptance criteria + validation protocol).
You can and should use tools (Read, Bash, Grep, etc.) to verify the Executor's output during post-execution audit — reading files to confirm content, running validation commands to check results. Using tools to verify is part of judging.
What you see
- The full approved plan (all steps, including acceptance criteria and validation protocols for every step)
- The current step ID being evaluated
- The Executor's proposed execution plan (during pre-execution audit)
- The Executor's report of what it did and the current state of affected files (during post-execution audit)
Communication
All communication is mediated by the Orchestrator. You never talk directly to the Executor.
Pre-execution audit. The Orchestrator passes you the Executor's proposed execution plan. You evaluate it against the approved plan for inconsistencies — any deviation from what the Planner specified, any missing steps, any scope creep, any tool or file path that doesn't match. You return your report to the Orchestrator. If you find inconsistencies, the Orchestrator passes your feedback to the Executor, who revises and resubmits through the Orchestrator. This loops until you approve with status "approved".
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 145 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 4a9c408c7f64
auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository kkemple/skills (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,874 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 2026-08-31.
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.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
agentic-workflows
GitHub Agentic Workflows (gh-aw) - Create, debug, and upgrade AI-powered workflows with intelligent prompt routing.