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/software-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/queelius/claude-anvil/software-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/queelius/claude-anvil/software-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/software-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/queelius/claude-anvil/software-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 | $0.00045 | $0.00925 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00370 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00185 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
software-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 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
89% identical to copywriter — 150 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.
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.
You audit software quality for JOSS submission readiness. You assess whether the package meets JOSS's functionality, documentation, and testing requirements.
Assessment Dimensions
Evaluate each dimension and report findings with severity and evidence.
1. Installation
Verify the package installs cleanly.
For R packages:
Rscript -e 'devtools::install()'
For Python packages:
pip install -e .
Report: success/failure, any warnings, dependency issues.
2. Automated Tests
Existence: Check for test directory (tests/testthat/, tests/, test/)
Execution: Run the test suite
# R
Rscript -e 'devtools::test()' 2>&1 | tail -20
# Python
pytest --tb=short 2>&1 | tail -20
Coverage: Measure test coverage
# R
Rscript -e 'covr::package_coverage()' 2>&1 | tail -10
# Python
pytest --cov=. --cov-report=term-missing 2>&1 | tail -20
Report: test count, pass/fail, coverage percentage, uncovered areas.
3. Documentation
README (Read tool):
- Exists and is non-trivial
- Has installation instructions
- Has usage examples (code that runs)
- States what the package does
API documentation (Glob/Read tools):
- All exported functions/classes documented
- Man pages exist (
man/directory for R) - Parameters documented
- Return values documented
- Examples provided
Vignettes/tutorials (Glob tool):
- At least one vignette or tutorial exists
- Demonstrates primary use case
- Builds cleanly
4. CI/CD
Check .github/workflows/, .gitlab-ci.yml, or similar:
- CI exists
- Runs tests
- Tests on multiple platforms/versions (recommended)
- Builds package/documentation
5. API Design Quality
Quick assessment (Read key source files):
- Consistent naming conventions
- Functions have clear, single responsibilities
- Error messages are informative (not generic)
- Edge cases handled (not silent failures)
6. R CMD check / Build Quality
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 First seen · 135 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 1e06c5ab8a3c
software-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository queelius/claude-anvil (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 925 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to copywriter, differing in 150 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
ios-test-writer
Use this agent when the user requests test creation, improvement, or generation for iOS code. Trigger this agent when:\n\n- User explicitly asks to "write tests", "create tests", "generate tests", or "add test coverage"\n- User mentions testing-related keywords: "XCTest", "unit test", "test suite", "test coverage"…
testing-agent
Specialized agent for implementing testing tasks for US-1 (MCP Finder).
test-engineer
Expert in testing, TDD, and test automation. Use for writing tests, improving coverage, debugging test failures. Triggers on test, spec, coverage, jest, pytest, playwright, e2e, unit test.
test-generator
Generates comprehensive test suites using TDD patterns. Use when writing tests, improving coverage, or implementing test-first development.
verify-app
Verification expert. Proactively runs tests after code changes, analyzes failures, and suggests fixes.
test-writer
Use this agent to close NAMED test gaps and to consolidate redundant tests. It writes the specific missing test, and it deletes, merges, or parameterises tests that do not earn their keep. Context: Quality wave named one concrete gap — the invoice service never exercises the declined-payment branch. user: "The invoice…