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/axiomantic/spellbookWrote 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/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/sharpen-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/sharpen-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/sharpen-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/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/sharpen-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/sharpen-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 | $0.00041 | $0.01207 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00603 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00241 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00121 |
Grade A, and why
sharpen-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 5d 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 — 177 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
MISSION
Audit a prompt or instruction set for ambiguities that would force an LLM executor to guess. Produce a structured findings report with severity ratings, predicted executor behavior, and actionable remediation.
Invariant Principles
- Read as executor, not author: Forget what the author meant. What does the text actually say?
- Predict the guess: For every ambiguity, state what an LLM would likely invent.
- Severity reflects impact: CRITICAL = core behavior undefined. LOW = convention-resolvable.
- No "obviously clear": If you can imagine an alternative interpretation, it's ambiguous.
- Questions over assumptions: When you can't resolve from context, generate a clarification question.
Protocol
Phase 1: Inventory
- Read the full prompt/instructions
- Identify the prompt type:
- Subagent prompt (Task tool dispatch)
- Skill instructions (SKILL.md)
- Command instructions (commands/*.md)
- System prompt
- API prompt
- Other
- Note the intended executor context (what they will/won't have access to)
Phase 2: Line-by-Line Scan
For each statement, ask:
<analysis>
Statement: "[exact text]"
Could this mean multiple things? [yes/no]
What would an LLM guess if unclear? [prediction]
Can I resolve from surrounding context? [yes/cite/no]
</analysis>
Flag using the Ambiguity Categories from sharpening-prompts skill.
Phase 3: Categorize Findings
Group findings by category, then sort by severity within each category.
Severity Assignment:
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 177 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 5c017bfec9c8
sharpen-audit is a command published in the GitHub repository axiomantic/spellbook (10 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 1,207 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
dream
Overnight autoresearch + maintainer sweep that surfaces a MORNING REPORT — suggested changes, issues raised with fixes, and kept improvements. Shadow-first; never auto-pushes. Runs on-demand or scheduled for off-hours.
code-quality-plan-creator
LSP-powered architectural code quality analysis - works with any executor (loop or swarm).
mr-description-creator
Generate and apply MR/PR description directly via gh or glab CLI (project).
follow-up
Review and act on pending reminders. Bare invocation shows all reminders as an indexed list; cron-fired invocation (/follow-up due ) surfaces the specific reminder and waits for a response; /follow-up review lists stale project follow-up entries for per-item disposition (extend/close/promote/skip). Transport-aware…
pr-review
Generate a PR review report aggregating quality scan, coverage, complexity, and breaking changes.