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.
npx agentmods add agents/terryc21/workflow-audit/layer2-methodologygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Terryc21/workflow-auditWhat 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 | $0.00000 | $0.01532 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00766 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00306 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00153 |
Grade A, and why
layer2-methodology 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 2d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 193 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Layer 2: Flow Tracing Methodology
Purpose
Layer 2 takes entry points from Layer 1 and traces the complete user journey:
- What happens when the user taps?
- Where do they land?
- Can they complete their goal?
- What feedback do they receive?
Tracing Process
Step 1: Identify Entry Point
From Layer 1 inventory, select an entry point to trace.
Step 2: Follow the Code Path
Entry Point → Action → Destination → User Goal
For each step, document:
- File and line number
- State changes
- View transitions
- Feedback shown
Step 3: Promise Check (CTA-to-Destination Scope)
Compare the CTA label's specificity against the destination view's scope:
| CTA Specificity | Destination Scope | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Specific ("Track AppleCare+") | Focused (ExtendedWarrantyForm) | ✅ Match |
| Specific ("Track AppleCare+") | Broad (EditItemSheetWrapper) | 🔴 Mismatch |
| General ("Edit Product") | Broad (EditItemSheetWrapper) | ✅ Match |
| General ("Settings") | Focused (NotificationSettings) | ⚠️ Over-specific |
How to assess:
- Count concerns in the CTA label (1 = specific, 2+ = general)
- Count distinct sections in the destination view
- If CTA concerns = 1 but destination sections >= 3 → Promise-Scope Mismatch
Real example caught: "Track AppleCare+" (1 concern) → EditItemSheetWrapper (5+ sections)
Fix: Create AppleCareDirectEditSheet wrapping only ExtendedWarrantyFormView
Step 4: Map Expected vs Actual
| Aspect | Expected | Actual | Gap? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Landing | Feature visible | Section landing | ⚠️ |
| Scope | Focused on CTA promise | Broad/generic | ⚠️ |
| Feedback | Success toast | None | ⚠️ |
| Next step | Clear CTA | Ambiguous | ⚠️ |
Step 5: Classify Issue Severity
| Severity | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 🔴 Critical | User cannot complete goal | Dead end, crash |
| 🟠 High | User confused, extra steps | Wrong landing, no feedback |
| 🟡 Medium | Friction but completable | Slow path, redundant steps |
| 🟢 Low | Minor polish | Inconsistent wording |
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 193 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 5753d90231b8
layer2-methodology is an agent published in the GitHub repository Terryc21/workflow-audit (58 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,532 tokens. 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
Native SwiftUI Builder
Builds complex custom SwiftUI views using standard SwiftUI components with TTBaseUIKit design tokens (XView/XSize/XFont). Does NOT use TTBaseSUI wrapper components.
Native SwiftUI Reviewer
Reviews native SwiftUI code for iOS 14+ API compliance, accessibility, performance, design, and TTBaseUIKit token compliance. Does NOT check for TTBaseSUI components.
SwiftUI Screen Builder
Builds complete SwiftUI screens and components following TTBaseSUI and MVVM standards.
Accessibility Audit
Audits iOS accessibility: VoiceOver labels/hints/traits, Dynamic Type, touch targets, color contrast, element grouping.
Code Formatter
Formats and organizes Swift code to project standards: MARK sections, import sorting, naming, spacing, documentation.
Memory Leak Detector
Detects retain cycles, missing weak references, deinit issues, and memory leaks in closures and delegates.