audit

A code review command for Flutter, Google's framework for building mobile, web, and desktop apps with Dart. It checks the project against listed Flutter coding practices.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to inspect Flutter code for issues such as missing const constructors, unsafe use of context after asynchronous work, hardcoded styles, weak typing, and outdated navigation or state-management patterns.
Why use it?
It finds questionable patterns and explains their location, severity, and a preferred alternative, so manual review takes less time.

Command

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/ofershap/flutter-best-practices/audit
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ofershap/flutter-best-practices
Per session 12 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 195 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00012 $0.00195
Opus 5 $0.00006 $0.00097
Sonnet 5 $0.00002 $0.00039
Haiku 4.5 $0.00001 $0.00019

Measured yesterday against content hash ddc8ebf1fcb2, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

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.

commands/audit.md · 28 lines

What it actually says

Scan the current project for Flutter anti-patterns and best practice violations.

Check for:

  • Navigator 1.0 (push/pop) instead of GoRouter
  • Pre-Dart 3 patterns (if/else chains vs sealed classes, Map vs records)
  • StatefulWidget with setState for shared state instead of Riverpod
  • Missing const constructors where applicable
  • Hardcoded colors/sizes instead of Theme.of(context)
  • Nested scrollable widgets (ListView in Column)
  • Raw String/int IDs instead of extension types
  • Using dynamic instead of proper types
  • Context used after async gap (mounted check)

For each issue found:

  1. Show the file and line
  2. Explain what's wrong
  3. Show the correct pattern
  4. Rate severity: critical / warning / info

Use the flutter-best-practices skill for reference on current best practices.

Changes

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.

  1. yesterday First seen · 28 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A ddc8ebf1fcb2

Subscribe to this mod's changes

audit is a command published in the GitHub repository ofershap/flutter-best-practices (1 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 195 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.