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/queelius/claude-anvilWrote 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/queelius/claude-anvil/cross-ref-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/queelius/claude-anvil/cross-ref-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/queelius/claude-anvil/cross-ref-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/queelius/claude-anvil/cross-ref-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/queelius/claude-anvil/cross-ref-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 | $0.00050 | $0.01123 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00449 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00225 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00112 |
Grade A, and why
cross-ref-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 yesterday.
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 — 126 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You verify that every cross-reference in the book is either correctly resolved or explicitly accounted for as an expected forward reference. You generate the cross-reference map for integration records. You do not edit any file.
Step 1: Parse the Header Comment Block
Read the drafted section's .tex file. Extract the three lists from the header comment block:
- DEFINED: labels this file declares with
\label{}. - RESOLVED: labels from prior sections this file references with
\Cref{}or\ref{}. - FORWARD: labels this file references that do not yet exist (expected to be defined in later sections).
If the header block is missing or malformed, report this as a BLOCKING finding immediately.
Step 2: Verify DEFINED Against Actual Declarations
Grep the file body for every \label{...} declaration:
grep -n '\\label{' <file>
Compare the extracted list against the DEFINED header entry. Report:
- Labels declared in the body but absent from DEFINED: header is incomplete.
- Labels in DEFINED but absent from the body: header is stale or incorrect.
Step 3: Verify RESOLVED Labels Exist in the Book Tree
For each label in the RESOLVED list, confirm it is declared somewhere in the book/ tree:
grep -r '\\label{<label>}' book/
If a RESOLVED label does not exist anywhere in the book tree, it is an unexpected undefined reference: report as BLOCKING unless it appears in the FORWARD list of an earlier section's plan (check docs/superpowers/plans/).
Step 4: Verify FORWARD Labels Have a Plan Entry
For each label in the FORWARD list, confirm that some plan file documents it as a future item:
grep -r '<label>' docs/superpowers/plans/
A FORWARD label with no plan entry may be a typo or a label that was dropped from the plan. Report as SUBSTANTIVE.
Step 5: Check Label Collisions
Grep the entire book/ tree for each DEFINED label. If a label appears in more than one file, report a collision as BLOCKING.
grep -rn '\\label{<label>}' book/
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.
- yesterday Changed · +2 lines 9bca75826870
- 4d ago Changed · +2 tokens per session 2041cf42bbb9
- 1mo ago First seen · 124 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A bb3c7d215ba4
cross-ref-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository queelius/claude-anvil (2 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 1,123 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
ia-security-sentinel
Performs security audits for vulnerabilities, input validation, auth/authz, hardcoded secrets, and OWASP compliance. Use when reviewing code for security issues or before deployment.
ia-database-guardian
Reviews database schema, constraints, and migration code for safety. Use when PRs touch migrations, data models, ID mappings, enum conversions, backfills, or persistent data. Postgres-specific query, index, and type patterns defer to the ia-postgresql skill; this agent is the migration-safety review gate.
ia-deployment-verification-agent
Produces Go/No-Go deployment runbooks with SQL verification queries, rollback steps, and monitoring plans. Use after migration code is approved to build pre-check queries, watch commands, and rollback procedures for the deploy.
ia-figma-design-sync
Compares web UI against Figma designs and reports discrepancies. Optionally implements fixes. Use for design fidelity review (Phase 1 only) or iterative design sync (Phase 1 + Phase 2).
ia-code-simplicity-reviewer
Produces a simplification analysis report (no code changes). Use when YAGNI violations or over-engineering are suspected, or before merging a feature with high LOC. For actual refactoring, use the simplifying-code skill.
ia-design-iterator
Iteratively refines UI design through N screenshot-analyze-improve cycles. Use PROACTIVELY when design changes aren't coming together after 1-2 attempts, or when user requests iterative refinement.