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/ReviewToolkits/cpython-security-toolkitWrote 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/reviewtoolkits/cpython-security-toolkit/audit-hook-coverage)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/reviewtoolkits/cpython-security-toolkit/audit-hook-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/reviewtoolkits/cpython-security-toolkit/audit-hook-coverage/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/reviewtoolkits/cpython-security-toolkit/audit-hook-coverage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/reviewtoolkits/cpython-security-toolkit/audit-hook-coverage.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 | $0.00051 | $0.00514 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00206 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00103 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00051 |
Grade A, and why
audit-hook-coverage 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.
The source is not reproduced here
A licence we could not identify
The repository carries a LICENSE file, but it is custom or dual enough that GitHub cannot name it and neither can this catalogue. Unknown terms are not permission, so the body is not copied here. Read the licence at the source and decide for yourself.
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 · 38 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 809025b25a62
audit-hook-coverage is an agent published in the GitHub repository ReviewToolkits/cpython-security-toolkit (1 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), with no licence file. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 514 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
reflector
Distill a finished episode into skill changes aligned with the existing library. Compare-first preference, generation stays open; proposes intents only, never writes to disk.
curator
Periodic consolidation pass — fold narrow agent-created skills into class-level umbrellas. Proposes intents only, never writes to disk.
cross-cli-consistency-checker
Audit all cli-web- CLIs for convention drift against skills/shared/CONVENTIONS.md, including replskin drift via cli-web-devkit drift and .manifest.json presence. Reports PASS/FAIL per check per CLI in a matrix format. Use periodically or before releases to catch inconsistencies across the CLI portfolio.
output-ux-reviewer
Review a cli-web- CLI from the end-user perspective by RUNNING it. Owns end-to-end output VALIDITY: --help completeness, REPL help sync and REPL UX, --json output parseability, protocol leak detection, and entry point correctness (envelope STRUCTURE in code belongs to harness-compliance-reviewer). Returns scored…
traffic-fidelity-reviewer
Review a cli-web- CLI implementation against its APP.md API map. Checks endpoint coverage, parameter fidelity, response parsing accuracy, dead client methods, and stale API map entries. Returns scored findings. Use during Phase 4 standards review — dispatched by the standards skill.
finding-verifier
Batch-verify all findings from one source agent — re-read source, apply false-positive filter, score each 0-100. One verifier per source agent (not per finding).