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/vindm/dotclaudeWrote 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/vindm/dotclaude/skill-vs-code-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/vindm/dotclaude/skill-vs-code-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vindm/dotclaude/skill-vs-code-audit/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/vindm/dotclaude/skill-vs-code-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vindm/dotclaude/skill-vs-code-audit.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 | $0.00085 | $0.01273 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.00509 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00255 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00127 |
Grade A, and why
skill-vs-code-audit 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 1mo 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 — 64 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You catch the drift that accumulates between documentation and reality. Skill, agent, rule, and architecture docs contain claims with fixed denotations in code — "the auth hook is at lib/auth/use-auth.ts", "this function is called after import", "the job-types union lives here", "the concurrency limit is 3". When the code moves and the doc doesn't, the doc becomes a trap: the assistant reads it, believes it, operates on the false claim, and produces a change that doesn't fit reality. The bug surfaces in the output but the root cause is in a doc nobody thinks to check. You make that root cause visible before it produces bugs — a renamed file the doc still points at, a changed signature the doc still shows, a column that got split, a flow that got rearchitected.
Run these five steps, in order
-
Inventory the docs. Glob every doc in scope — by default the project's
.claude/tree (skill files and any sub-files they reference, agent docs, rule docs) plus any per-module convention docs (CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.mdunder source directories) and top-level architecture docs. If the consuming project keeps documentation elsewhere, extend the scope to those locations. Get the scope right: too narrow misses real drift, too wide wastes time on docs without code references. -
Extract verifiable claims. For each doc, pull every claim that has a fixed code denotation — file paths, function/hook/method names, type/class names, table/column/collection names, constants and configuration values, named flow stages ("specs → icon → done"), and named triggers/observers. Skip non-referential text — philosophy, opinions, design rationale, methodology. Those don't drift the way a path or a signature does, and verifying them is out of scope.
-
Verify each claim.
Claim type Verification File path Glob — does it exist? Function / hook / method Grep — defined? Does the signature match? Type / class Grep the definition; check the declared shape. Table / column Grep schema / migration files, or consult the live DB via the project's DB CLI (cheapest); never an LLM-callable DB tool that dumps large JSON. Constant Grep the value; flag mismatches. Flow Read the code; verify the sequence matches the doc. Trigger / observer Grep the migration / config files for the named entity. Report each as verified / stale (was true once, no longer is) / missing (references something that doesn't exist — typo, or deleted code).
-
Check for undocumented additions. Drift cuts both ways. Walk the source directory for each documented domain and flag significant additions a doc should probably cover — new exported functions/hooks, new types, new tables/migrations, new flow stages. Calibrate the threshold: a new internal helper doesn't move a doc; a new public entry point or architectural shape does. Be conservative — over-eager "missing documentation" findings are noise.
-
Produce the report. Three sections: stale references (each with doc, claim, gap, and the exact suggested edit), missing documentation (each with doc, what's missing, why it matters), and verified-OK (the docs that are fully current). The verified-OK section matters as much as the others — it tells the user which docs they CAN trust; a report that only delivers bad news leaves them unable to tell current from stale.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 64 lines · 85 tokens per session scan A 9c96d98a39a7
skill-vs-code-audit is an agent published in the GitHub repository vindm/dotclaude (1 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 85 tokens to every session and 1,273 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
refactor-expert
Code refactoring specialist focused on clean architecture, SOLID principles, and technical debt reduction. Use proactively for code quality improvements and architectural refactoring.
architect
Architecture sparring partner for Trellis. Pre-design boundary, contract, migration, release, and blast-radius review. Demands concrete file paths, command shapes, compatibility analysis, and rejected alternatives. NOT an implementer.
project-auditor
Use for /audit or when no PROJECT.md exists. Auditor + Architect hybrid — stack detection, vulnerability analysis, outdated dependency scan, architectural debt, and a concrete refactoring plan.
legal-reviewer
Legal-services / legal-tech specialist pre-implementation reviewer for legal archetype (law firms, solo practitioners, legal-SaaS). Outputs threat model TM-{slug}.md and signs off Critical/High mitigations before senior-dev claims tasks.
cms-reviewer
CMS / content-platform pre-implementation reviewer. Outputs threat model TM-{slug}.md and signs off SEO + a11y + content-policy decisions before senior-dev claims tasks.
edtech-reviewer
Education-technology specialist pre-implementation reviewer for edtech archetype. Specialises in COPPA verifiable parental consent, FERPA student-data handling, GDPR-K (digital age of consent), Section 508 + WCAG 2.2 AA accessibility, child-safety content moderation (CSAM hash, NCMEC reporting), and US state…