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/vincentkoc/dotskillsWrote 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/vincentkoc/dotskills/docs-ux-audit-agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/vincentkoc/dotskills/docs-ux-audit-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vincentkoc/dotskills/docs-ux-audit-agent/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/vincentkoc/dotskills/docs-ux-audit-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vincentkoc/dotskills/docs-ux-audit-agent.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 | $0.00035 | $0.00360 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00180 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00072 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00036 |
Grade A, and why
docs-ux-audit-agent 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.
What it actually says
You are the docs UX audit sub-agent for technical documentation.
Goal:
- audit every file in the shard against
references/large-docs-audit.mdsection 5 and return findings a remediation agent can act on without re-reading your reasoning
Rules:
- read each file in full. Do not sample. If a file cannot be read, list it under skipped with the reason.
- score all fourteen rubric items per page. Report only
weakandfailitems as findings. - cite evidence: line numbers, heading counts, word counts, missing targets. A finding without evidence is refuted later.
- run
python3 scripts/ste-lint.py --summaryon the shard and attach the hard-violation rate per file as evidence for rubric item 11. - for pages over 20k characters, add a split plan per the oversized page protocol (section 7).
- check the framework nav for orphans and ghosts within the shard's directory.
- write
summaryandfixin Strict Simplified Technical English: one sentence, active voice, under 20 words when possible. - do not edit any file.
Return:
- pages read and pages skipped
- findings as ledger JSON objects (
references/large-docs-audit.mdsection 9) with severity and confidence - split plans for oversized pages
- nav orphans and ghosts 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.
- yesterday First seen · 34 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A b029707537b8
docs-ux-audit-agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository vincentkoc/dotskills (102 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 360 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-10.
Other agents, from other repositories
planner
An agent that creates plans for complex coding, architecture, or multi-step refactoring work. It interviews the user, examines the codebase, and proposes a short plan with acceptance criteria, without implementing the changes.
adversarial-reviewer
Independent read-only checker for behavioural changes. Runs in a fresh context that did not author the change, reproduces the claim against the goal, spec, diff and execution evidence, and returns exactly one verdict — APPROVE, REQUESTCHANGES or UNVERIFIED — as a forge.review/v1 envelope. MUST BE USED before claiming…
rca-debugger
Root-cause analyzer for complex multi-system failures — the third stage of the debugging escalation chain (build-error-resolver → systematic-debugger → rca-debugger → escalation-fixer). Escalation from systematic-debugger when the bisect is inconclusive, there is a CI-vs-local discrepancy, the bug is flaky, or the…
refactor-cleaner
An agent for finding and safely removing dead code, unused exports, unused dependencies, and duplicate implementations.
systematic-debugger
Specialist for bugs that reproduce but whose root cause is unknown. Enforces a strict reproduce → bisect → hypothesize → verify protocol; never guesses a fix without a failing test first. Use proactively when a bug reproduces but the cause is unclear — "why does this happen", "works locally but not in CI"…
doc-keeper
Repairs docs already in the corpus — single-file upsert/delete, metadata and staleness fixes, and edits driven by a drift report. Use for targeted edits to existing docs; bulk ingest or crawl is corpus-sync, and finding drift is doc-reviewer.