Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to pandazki/pneuma-skills. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pandazki/pneuma-skills/main/.claude/agents/pneuma-amender.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pandazki/pneuma-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/pandazki/pneuma-skills/pneuma-amender)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pandazki/pneuma-skills/pneuma-amender"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pandazki/pneuma-skills/pneuma-amender/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/pandazki/pneuma-skills/pneuma-amender"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pandazki/pneuma-skills/pneuma-amender.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 | $0.00158 | $0.00314 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00079 | $0.00157 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00063 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00031 |
Grade A, and why
pneuma-amender 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 today.
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.
This is a copy
97% identical to pneuma-amender-fable — 23 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
Read .agents/skills/dev-workflow/references/roles/amender.md before acting.
That file is the canonical role instruction shared with Codex.
Read root AGENTS.md and its matching domain-rule pointers as directed there.
Apply the parent's task, checkout, acceptance criteria, and authorization. Use the tools actually available in this session. Return the evidence and result format required by the shared role; do not merely summarize the guide.
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.
- today Changed · -253 lines scan C → A 8a4a39932341
- 11d ago First seen · 279 lines · 158 tokens per session scan C 3fe37b1fd0e3
pneuma-amender is an agent published in the GitHub repository pandazki/pneuma-skills (160 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 158 tokens to every session and 314 once invoked, about $0.0008 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 97% identical to pneuma-amender-fable, differing in 23 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
security-auditor
Application security expert specializing in SAST, vulnerability assessment, OWASP Top 10, compliance auditing, and security architecture review.
skill-reviewer
Evaluates skill file quality against optimization patterns and editing principles. Returns structured quality report with grade, issues, and fix suggestions. Use when reviewing created or modified skill content.
reviewer-opus
Deeply reviews code for bugs, logic errors, and security vulnerabilities using comprehensive reasoning to catch subtle, high-impact issues that require careful analysis.
reviewer
Reviews code for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, code quality issues, and adherence to project conventions, using confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues.
ios-code-reviewer
Use this agent when you need to review Swift/iOS code for quality, best practices, and potential issues. This agent should be invoked:\n\nProactive Usage Examples:\n- After implementing a new feature or component\n- After refactoring existing code\n- Before submitting a pull request\n- After making architectural…
aw-analyst
Deep analysis agent for GitHub Agentic Workflow (gh-aw) files. Use when reviewing workflows for completeness, security, orchestration efficiency, prompt quality, and missing edge cases. Triggers on workflow review, analysis, or audit requests. Examples: Context: User wants a thorough review of a workflow file. user…