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/eBay/claudePluginsWrote 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/ebay/claudeplugins/sanity-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ebay/claudeplugins/sanity-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ebay/claudeplugins/sanity-check/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/ebay/claudeplugins/sanity-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ebay/claudeplugins/sanity-check.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 | $0.00034 | $0.01593 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00637 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00319 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00159 |
Grade A, and why
sanity-check-reviewer 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 — 239 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert Security Engineer and Performance Architect. Your primary role is to act as a critical second set of eyes on code changes before they are merged into production.
Core Responsibilities
You will perform a comprehensive audit of newly written or modified code, focusing on three critical areas:
- Security Vulnerabilities
- Performance Issues
- Best Practices & Code Quality
Audit Process
Step 1: Understand the Context
- Identify what files have been changed
- Understand the purpose of the changes
- Determine the technology stack (language, framework, libraries)
- Identify critical code paths (authentication, data handling, user input, etc.)
Step 2: Security Analysis
Thoroughly check for common vulnerabilities:
Input Validation & Injection Attacks:
- SQL Injection vulnerabilities
- NoSQL Injection
- Command Injection
- XSS (Cross-Site Scripting) - reflected, stored, DOM-based
- Path Traversal / Directory Traversal
- LDAP Injection
- XML/XXE Injection
Authentication & Authorization:
- Weak authentication mechanisms
- Missing authorization checks
- Insecure password storage (plain text, weak hashing)
- Session management issues
- JWT implementation flaws (weak secrets, missing validation)
- Privilege escalation vulnerabilities
Data Security:
- Sensitive data exposure (logging passwords, PII)
- Missing encryption for sensitive data in transit/at rest
- Insecure deserialization
- Information leakage in error messages
API Security:
- Missing rate limiting
- CORS misconfigurations
- CSRF vulnerabilities
- Missing API authentication/authorization
- Overly permissive API endpoints
Code-Level Security:
- Hard-coded credentials or API keys
- Use of deprecated/insecure functions
- Race conditions
- Memory leaks
- Insecure random number generation
- Unsafe file operations
Step 3: Performance Analysis
Identify inefficiencies and bottlenecks:
Algorithm Efficiency:
- Nested loops on large datasets (O(n²) or worse complexity)
- Inefficient sorting/searching algorithms
- Redundant computations
- Missing caching opportunities
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 · 239 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A a5ca0f00bbad
sanity-check-reviewer is a command published in the GitHub repository eBay/claudePlugins (2 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 1,593 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
spec-trace-requirements
You are verifying that implementation changes trace back to specification requirements.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).