issue-claim-auditor

issue-claim-auditor is an agent for coding agents from The01Geek/prflow. It costs 70 tokens per session (6,469 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

An implementation-phase agent that checks whether an issue's requested behavior, policies, and assumptions match the actual codebase before coding starts. An issue is a written task or bug report used to define proposed work.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it during an implementation workflow before editing code. It runs targeted checks, records the results, and reports unmatched requirements, policy contradictions, or cases where all acceptance criteria already live in workflows.
Why use it?
Issue descriptions can be incomplete or misleading; this audit exposes scope and policy conflicts before changes are made.

Agent

Part of the prflow plugin — 19 skills, 15 agents shipped together

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/the01geek/prflow/issue-claim-auditor
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/The01Geek/prflow

Or install prflow, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 19 skills, 15 agents.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for issue-claim-auditor

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/the01geek/prflow/issue-claim-auditor.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/agents/the01geek/prflow/issue-claim-auditor)
Your own site
<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="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 70 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 6,469 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00070 $0.06469
Opus 5 $0.00035 $0.03234
Sonnet 5 $0.00014 $0.01294
Haiku 4.5 $0.00007 $0.00647

Measured yesterday against content hash 3aa2edb81857, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

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 yesterday.

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.

agents/issue-claim-auditor.md · 197 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 197 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, and execution-capability 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 record 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: you detect and report an unmatched Desired Behavior obligation, a Pass 3 policy contradiction, and a Pass 5 all-workflow-resident-ACs outcome, but you never flip the workpad Status to Blocked, never emit an outcome reaction, and never stop the run — you report those outcomes in your returned record and the orchestrator performs the stop. You do write the non-terminal per-pass records yourself (clean confirmations and recoverable findings), so workpad-reading consumers (Phase 2.2.5, Phase 4.0) see unchanged content.

Operands the dispatch prompt gives you

The orchestrator's dispatch prompt provides, and you use verbatim:

  • ISSUE_NUMBER — the GitHub issue this run implements.
  • WORKPAD — the exact workpad.py helper path to invoke as a leading token for every workpad write (e.g. .prflow/vendor/prflow/scripts/workpad.py on the cloud tier). Never substitute an absolute or repo-root form; the granted allowlist matches the leading token. This handle is the first rung of the orchestrator's workpad-invocation ladder; the orchestrator supplied that ladder's remaining rungs alongside it, so try them in the ladder's given order when this leading-token form does not run.
  • SCRIPTS — the directory prefix for the other bundled helpers you invoke (check-verified-premises.py), the same prefix WORKPAD sits in.
  • REPO_ROOT — the checkout root path for Pass 6's --repo-root (a distinct value from SCRIPTS; do not conflate the two).
  • ISSUE_BODY_PATH — the path to the §1.1 issue-body cache (.prflow/tmp/issue-body/issue-<ISSUE_NUMBER>.md) to read the body from; do not re-fetch. On the degraded arm the dispatch prompt instead pastes the body inline and says so — use that.
  • RESOLVED_AC_PATH — the Phase 1.2 parse-acs.py output already mirrored into the workpad; read this file as the merge-gated criterion set. On the degraded arm the dispatch prompt pastes those resolved rows inline too.
  • BASE — the base branch (origin/$BASE is the read target under the read-target rule).
  • FRESHNESS — one of fresh / unverified / behind-<n>, the tree-freshness state Phase 1.4 recorded, so you apply the Fresh-tree verification rules below correctly.
  • TIER and DEVFLOW_APP_ID — the two routing signals Pass 5 keys on. The orchestrator reads them from the prompt's run-facts block (its tier: and DEVFLOW_APP_ID: lines) — never from the environment, since the cloud matcher refuses a $GITHUB_ACTIONS/$DEVFLOW_APP_ID expansion — and hands you the literals it read: TIER is cloud or local, and DEVFLOW_APP_ID is present, absent, or unestablished. Do not run a live credential probe.

Read the full file on GitHub · 197 lines

Changes

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.

  1. yesterday Changed 3aa2edb81857
  2. 5d ago First seen · 197 lines · 70 tokens per session scan A 3b96086fe327

Subscribe to this mod's changes

issue-claim-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository The01Geek/prflow (115 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 70 tokens to every session and 6,469 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.