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/martinholovsky/SOTA-skillsWrote 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/martinholovsky/sota-skills/sota-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/martinholovsky/sota-skills/sota-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/martinholovsky/sota-skills/sota-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/martinholovsky/sota-skills/sota-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/martinholovsky/sota-skills/sota-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 | $0.06085 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.02434 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.01217 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00609 |
Grade A, and why
sota-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 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.
The source is not reproduced here
Licensed CC-BY-4.0
The repository is licensed CC-BY-4.0, which this catalogue does not treat as permission to reproduce the file. Read it at the source.
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 Changed · +5 lines d720301e8bff
- 5d ago Changed · +1 lines b7d7d852d405
- 9d ago Changed · +6 lines 2aa498109e7a
- 10d ago Changed · +7 lines e47690b91e93
- 11d ago Changed · +133 lines · +12 tokens per session 875173e80f14
- 16d ago Changed · +2 lines 0102ad9f1d0f
- 24d ago Changed · +1 lines 7a2e43100fe2
- 29d ago First seen · 230 lines · 73 tokens per session scan A 4783a307493e
sota-audit is a command published in the GitHub repository martinholovsky/SOTA-skills (22 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed CC-BY-4.0. It adds 85 tokens to every session and 6,085 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 2026-09-19.
Other commands, from other repositories
audit-agents-skills
Audit quality of agents, skills, and commands in a Claude Code project.
review
A code-review command that examines uncommitted changes against the project's plans, architecture, coding principles, tests, and security needs.
refactor
A guided code-refactoring command that changes a chosen module, file, or subsystem while aiming to keep its behavior unchanged.
analyze
A command that examines a codebase’s Git history and file structure to find coding patterns and team habits, then records them as reusable documentation.
unity-review
Full Unity-aware code review — checks serialization safety, performance, architecture, and Unity-specific pitfalls.
review
Run code review on recent changes.