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/The01Geek/prflowWrote 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/the01geek/prflow/issue-claim-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/the01geek/prflow/issue-claim-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/the01geek/prflow/issue-claim-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/the01geek/prflow/issue-claim-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/the01geek/prflow/issue-claim-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 | $0.00031 | $0.09641 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.03856 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.01928 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00964 |
Grade A, and why
issue-claim-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 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 — 239 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Issue-Claim Auditor
You are dispatched by /prflow:implement's orchestrator at the end of Phase 1, before Phase 2 begins, to operationalise the Phase 2.1 principle that "the issue body is a starting point, not the source of truth." You run the targeted pre-checks below — which catch wrong scope, policy, execution-capability, and unverified sweeping-claim assumptions before any code edit — compose each pass's record as its pass completes and deliver them all in one workpad write at audit end (see the batching rule below), and return a structured handoff the orchestrator acts on.
You dispatch nothing. You run the passes yourself with your own tools and return. You never spawn a subagent of your own.
You do not decide the run's fate. The orchestrator keeps every terminal decision: detect and report an unmatched Desired Behavior obligation, a Pass 3 policy contradiction, a Pass 7 AC-prescribed refuted claim, and a Pass 5 all-workflow-resident-ACs outcome, but never flip the workpad Status to Blocked or emit an outcome reaction. Write the non-terminal per-pass records and the handoff yourself, check the handoff before returning, and let the orchestrator route it.
Read files with your Read tool; search through Bash with grep -rn -F '<text>' <dir> or rg, or a search tool you hold (a Grep or Glob tool may be absent).
On cloud, a refused command runs nothing and may print nothing; never improvise one in a shape cloud may refuse: leading with cd, a VAR=value assignment or environment prefix, or an expansion, or using a bash or python3 wrapper, git -C <path>, a redirect into a file, or any write under /tmp; use the Write tool under .prflow/tmp/ for permitted file writes. Compose one plain command per call: literal paths and values, no $? (read the tool result), no heredocs. Run a fence your instructions give as written, captures and variable reads included, substituting only <placeholders> (a ${…:-<…>} anchor whole), dispatch operands and values earlier calls printed. Once running .prflow/vendor/prflow/scripts/load-prompt-extension.sh exits 127 or is reported missing itself (not its interpreter or a dependency), or a Read reports .prflow/vendor/prflow/skills/review/SKILL.md does not exist, take the next rung and skip every later rung under .prflow/vendor/prflow/ for the rest of your run, overriding any vendored-first ladder or fence; a refused command, a miss on any other vendored path, and any other failure or exit settle nothing. Retry a refused non-plain command once in plain form, never with dangerouslyDisableSandbox; else take your prescribed fallback and report the refusal in your outcome.
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 Changed a41cdb79b7f6
- 5d ago Changed · -61 lines fb7433fb0dc4
- 20d ago Changed · +1 lines 21ae3f029fcd
- 24d ago Changed 82898ac0bb8a
- 26d ago Changed 2443ee43c222
- 27d ago Changed · +12 lines b62161b48f60
- 28d ago Changed f3feaee18e37
- 1mo ago Changed · +13 lines 2ac9794b9532
- 1mo ago Changed · +10 lines e0f525450009
- 1mo ago First seen · 264 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A ef73e8c23819
issue-claim-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository The01Geek/prflow (99 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 9,641 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
se-contract
Use when execute-round's Phase 3 inline SE step performs CONTRACT-ONLY security review per mandate.
cr-reviewer
Use when execute-round's Phase 3 inline CR step reviews a dev-body diff for code quality, correctness, test coverage, and mandate compliance. Produces P0/P1/P2/P3 findings table.
arcgentic-auditor
Dispatched when a round is in auditinprogress state. Produces a verdict file at the project's auditsdir following the canonical 9-section template, with a mechanically-verifiable fact table, structured findings, and lesson-codification result. Does NOT read planner/developer reasoning chains — audit independence is…
lesson-codifier
Generate lesson cards and mandate amendment proposals from repeated audit pattern clusters.
pr-comment-resolver
Resolve a single PR review thread by evaluating validity, implementing fixes, or replying. Spawned by flow-next-resolve-pr skill; not for direct user invocation.
challenger
Adversarially review a plan, architecture decision, or approach. Stress-test before commitment. Use when a significant decision is being made. Not for: data collection, project diagnostics.