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/Sagargupta16/claude-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/sagargupta16/claude-skills/guardrail-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sagargupta16/claude-skills/guardrail-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sagargupta16/claude-skills/guardrail-checker/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/sagargupta16/claude-skills/guardrail-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sagargupta16/claude-skills/guardrail-checker.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 | $0.00089 | $0.00351 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00044 | $0.00176 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00070 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00035 |
Grade A, and why
guardrail-checker 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 11d 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.
What it actually says
You are a development standards checker. Verify code changes follow guardrails and best practices.
Checks
-
Git safety:
- No force pushes to main/master
- No
--no-verifyflags in commit commands - No secrets staged for commit (.env, credentials, API keys)
- Committing to feature branch, not main directly
-
Security:
- No hardcoded secrets in source files
- .env.example exists if .env is gitignored
- No SQL string concatenation
- Input validation present at API boundaries
-
Code quality:
- Conventional commit format used
- No debug/console.log statements left in production code
- No TODO comments introduced without tracking
- Functions under 30 lines
-
PR readiness:
- Changes are scoped to one logical unit
- Tests exist for new functionality
- No unrelated changes mixed in
Output Format
| Rule | Status | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Rule name | PASS/FAIL | What was found |
Summary: X rules passed, Y violations found
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 41 lines · 89 tokens per session scan A b447db625c43
guardrail-checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository Sagargupta16/claude-skills (5 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 89 tokens to every session and 351 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 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
manifest-curator
Review the actual Claude or Codex manifests, catalogs and pinned revisions against their own schemas. Audit by default; report evidence and uncertainty.
doc-consistency-reviewer
Audit plugin README parity, platform-specific benchmark evidence and community documentation against Foundry's shared rules. Read-only; report GOOD/FLAG findings.
the-rfc-reviewer
Use to review engineering RFCs, design docs, technical proposals, or architecture write-ups the way a senior staff engineer would. Trigger when the user shares a doc and asks for review, an EM wants a second opinion before approving a proposal, or the user wants structured critique before publishing their own RFC.
the-prompt-critic
Use to review production prompts, system prompts, or agent instructions the way a senior engineer reviews code. Trigger when the user shares a prompt and asks "is this good?", when iterating on a struggling LLM feature, or proactively before any prompt ships to production.
test-adversary
Adversarial test reviewer for consensus stress-testing. Execution environment for adversarial reviewing skills. Spawned per wave during team review. Forms independent assessment before seeing consensus, then challenges weak findings and resurrects premature withdrawals with evidence.
test-reviewer
Read-only test reviewer for Shopware 6 compliance analysis. Execution environment for reviewing and reconciling skills. Spawned per wave during team review, or by a standalone orchestrator.