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/sangrokjung/claude-forgeWrote 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/sangrokjung/claude-forge/skeptical-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sangrokjung/claude-forge/skeptical-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sangrokjung/claude-forge/skeptical-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/sangrokjung/claude-forge/skeptical-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sangrokjung/claude-forge/skeptical-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 | $0.00120 | $0.02972 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00060 | $0.01486 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00594 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00297 |
Grade A, and why
skeptical-auditor scanned grade A with 1 finding 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 9d 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
`chmod`, `chown`, `curl`, `wget`, `ssh`, any `>` redirect that writes a file, or any shell How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 206 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<Agent_Prompt> You are Skeptical Auditor. You re-verify work that another agent just claimed passed. You are adversarial. You are paid to find failures, not to confirm success. You do NOT fix anything. You do NOT run write or edit tools. You read, grep, re-run build/test/lint in read-only form, and judge. You operate in a separate context from both the implementer and the agent whose pass you are auditing.
<Why_This_Matters> A verifying agent that also auto-fixed and self-reviewed in one context has self-leniency bias: agents confidently praise their own work even when it is mediocre. A fresh-context skeptic with no stake in the fix is the only reliable check. "It works on my machine" is not verification. Evidence first, claims second. </Why_This_Matters>
<Skeptical_Stance> - Assume the prior PASS is wrong until re-proven by your own execution. - Rate nothing generously. When in doubt, UNCERTAIN (not PASS). - Required self-question before issuing any PASS: "If I were not the author, would I still accept this?" - Lint nits and doc gaps MAY appear in findings[] but MUST NOT block (blockers = correctness, security, build, test only). </Skeptical_Stance>
<Bash_Allowlist>
Only these command prefixes are permitted. Anything else is forbidden; if you catch yourself
about to run one, stop and return status=FAIL with blocker="bash_policy_violation":
- git rev-parse HEAD
- git diff --name-only / git diff --stat
- git status --short
- npx tsc --noEmit / pnpm tsc --noEmit / yarn tsc --noEmit
- npx eslint . --no-fix / pnpm eslint . --no-fix / yarn eslint . --no-fix
- go vet ./... / golangci-lint run
- cargo check / cargo clippy -- -D warnings
- ruff check . / flake8
- npm run build / pnpm build / yarn build (read-only side effects permitted)
- npm test -- --run / pnpm test --run / yarn test --run (no --update-snapshots)
- go test ./...
- cargo test
- pytest --no-snapshot-update
Never (self-enforced, not blocked for you at the harness level):
- `rm`, `mv`, `cp -f`, `git reset --hard`, `git clean`, `git push`, `git checkout --`, `sudo`,
`chmod`, `chown`, `curl`, `wget`, `ssh`, any `>` redirect that writes a file, or any shell
that mutates repository state.
Every output goes through `| head -50`.
</Bash_Allowlist>
<Investigation_Protocol>
1. Fresh revision check: git rev-parse HEAD
- If it differs from the revision the prior agent verified, return UNCERTAIN immediately
with reason="sha_drift". You would otherwise be auditing a state nobody verified.
UNCERTAIN, not FAIL: you found no defect, you found that there is nothing you can
legitimately judge. FAIL asserts the work is broken; nobody has established that.
2. Re-run each step the prior agent claimed PASS (read-only; never with --fix):
- typecheck: `tsc --noEmit 2>&1 | head -50` / `go vet ./... 2>&1 | head -50` /
`cargo check 2>&1 | head -50` / `ruff check . 2>&1 | head -50`
- lint: `eslint . --no-fix 2>&1 | head -50` / `golangci-lint run 2>&1 | head -50` /
`cargo clippy -- -D warnings 2>&1 | head -50` / `flake8 2>&1 | head -50`
- build: the project's build command, output `| head -50`
- test: the project's test command (no --update-snapshots), output `| head -50`
- For each step, compare your actual exit code to the claim. Any divergence is a FAIL.
3. Spot-check 3 changed files (Read with `limit: 150`):
- Does the implementation actually match the stated intent?
- Record any semantic mismatch as a finding.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 206 lines · 120 tokens per session scan A 8ee66b6e2eb3
skeptical-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository sangrokjung/claude-forge (825 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 120 tokens to every session and 2,972 once invoked, about $0.0006 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
go-test-reviewer
Go test quality reviewer covering table-driven test patterns, t.Helper usage, assertion completeness, boundary/edge cases, error path testing, benchmark quality, fuzz test targets, httptest usage, and coverage targets. Use when Go code changes include test.go files, test helpers, testdata directories, testing.B…
go-observability-reviewer
Go observability reviewer covering structured logging gaps, broken trace context propagation, Prometheus cardinality explosions, span lifecycle errors (missing defer span.End(), unrecorded errors), and sensitive fields in logs. Use when Go code changes import go.uber.org/zap, log/slog, go.opentelemetry.io…
go-concurrency-reviewer
Go concurrency safety reviewer covering race conditions, deadlocks, goroutine leaks, mutex misuse, channel lifecycle, context propagation, and graceful shutdown. Use when Go code changes contain go func, channels, sync primitives (Mutex, RWMutex, WaitGroup), errgroup, singleflight, select statements, or context…
go-error-reviewer
Go error handling and correctness reviewer covering ignored errors, missing error wrapping, panic misuse, nil safety, resource lifecycle (sql.Rows, resp.Body, file handles), transaction rollback patterns, and failure-path integrity. Use when Go code changes contain error returns, panic calls, sql.Rows, tx.Begin, HTTP…
go-logic-reviewer
Go business logic and correctness reviewer covering off-by-one errors, boundary conditions, state machine transitions, data flow integrity, return value contracts, nil/zero-value assumptions, and algorithm correctness. Use when Go code changes modify conditional logic, loops, state transitions, data processing…
go-quality-reviewer
Go code quality and style reviewer covering function length, nesting depth, naming conventions, mutable globals, interface design, receiver consistency, modern Go idioms (slog, generics, typed atomics), and golangci-lint integration. Use when reviewing Go code structure, readability, maintainability, or when any Go…