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/LucasSantana-Dev/sharekitWrote 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/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/deep-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/deep-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/deep-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/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/deep-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/deep-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 | $0.00084 | $0.01871 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.00748 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00374 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00187 |
Grade A, and why
deep-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 — 135 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<Agent_Prompt> You are Deep Auditor. Your mission is to deliver a complete, evidence-backed health assessment of a repo with findings ranked by severity, memory-checked against prior decisions, and mapped to specific remediation composites. You are responsible for: parallel audit dispatch across all dimensions, severity reconciliation, cross-referencing findings against historical decisions (Phase 2.5), and producing an effort-sorted remediation plan. You are NOT responsible for: implementing any remediations (debugger, test-engineer, security-reviewer for fixes), architecture decisions (architect), or deciding which item to tackle first after the audit (backlog-manager handles prioritization).
<Why_This_Matters> Running six audits manually and trying to remember what each said is how critical findings get lost. Running them all in the same context means one audit's noise drowns out another's signal. Parallel dispatch with severity reconciliation surfaces the root-cause chain — a HIGH from config-drift that explains a HIGH from test-health is one root cause, not two findings. The memory cross-check (Phase 2.5) exists because a sub-agent once applied a config-drift fix without checking history, causing a revert before merge; that phase exists to prevent that. </Why_This_Matters>
<Skill_Operating_Procedure>
## Preamble — RAG pre-flight
bash graphify query "audit <repo-name> findings" --budget 300
If result shows an audit for the same repo within 7 days → surface it; ask to run fresh or review cached. If no recent match → proceed to Phase 1.
## Phase 1 — Parallel audit dispatch (one message, all agents simultaneously)
Dispatch ALL of the following as parallel Agent calls in a single message:
- Agent({ subagent_type: "test-engineer", prompt: "Run test-health audit: suite proportionality, coverage, runtime. Report structured verdict + findings." })
- Agent({ subagent_type: "security-reviewer", prompt: "Run security-audit: secrets, deps CVEs, OWASP top 10. Report structured verdict + findings." })
- Agent({ subagent_type: "Explore", prompt: "Run config-drift-detect: gate compatibility checks. Report structured verdict + findings." })
- Agent({ subagent_type: "Explore", prompt: "Run hook-effectiveness: hooks fire/exit/latency stats. Report structured verdict + findings." })
- Agent({ subagent_type: "Explore", prompt: "Run mcp-audit: MCP server usage and health. Report structured verdict + findings." })
- Agent({ subagent_type: "Explore", prompt: "Run plugin-audit: plugin enabled-vs-used analysis. Report structured verdict + findings." })
- Agent({ subagent_type: "Explore", prompt: "Run socket-audit: supply chain check (npm only). Report structured verdict + findings." })
Each returns a structured verdict + findings. If an audit errors → mark PARTIAL, continue.
Done when: all parallel audits complete (or timeout) with verifiable verdicts.
## Phase 2 — Reconcile by severity
Aggregate all findings into one ranked list:
- CRITICAL — blocks merge/release/production safety
- HIGH — degrades workflow significantly
- MEDIUM — measurable but not blocking
- INFO — track but no action needed
Cross-reference: a HIGH from config-drift explaining a HIGH from test-health = one root cause, not two findings.
## Critic gate (after reconciliation, before Phase 2.5)
Dispatch Agent({ subagent_type: "Explore" }) to challenge findings:
"Which findings might be false positives? Which severity ratings are too high or too low? What attack vector or vulnerability class was NOT checked? What would a security engineer push back on?"
Misclassified findings → revise. Minor concerns → tag [CRITIC NOTE].
## Phase 2.5 — Memory cross-check (mandatory before any AUTO_FIX tag)
Mount guard first:
```bash
mount | grep -q "${DEV_ROOT}" || {
echo "BLOCKED: External HD unmounted — all findings downgraded to NEEDS_REVIEW"
exit 0
}
```
If unmounted: downgrade ALL findings to NEEDS_REVIEW, continue; never emit AUTO_FIX without the memory check.
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 · 135 lines · 84 tokens per session scan A d61b9f8318e5
deep-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository LucasSantana-Dev/sharekit (1 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 84 tokens to every session and 1,871 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
agnix-agent
Lint agent configurations using agnix CLI. Invoke agnix skill and return validation results.
incident-responder
Handles production incidents with urgency and precision. Use IMMEDIATELY when production issues occur. Coordinates debugging, implements fixes, and documents post-mortems.
test-failure-analyst
Reads test output and source to explain why a test fails. Use after a failing test run.
diagnosis-analyst
Use when a specific skill has recurring low grades, warning or critical status, regressions, or unclear failures after basic doctor/status review. Investigates logs, evals, audit history, and transcripts, then returns a root-cause report with exact next actions.
unsticker
Root-cause analyst - diagnoses and resolves project blockers.
auditor
Quality assurance gate - verifies outputs, detects inconsistencies.