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/ofershap/python-best-practicesWrote 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/ofershap/python-best-practices/audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ofershap/python-best-practices/audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ofershap/python-best-practices/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/ofershap/python-best-practices/audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ofershap/python-best-practices/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 | $0.00012 | $0.00085 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00034 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00017 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00009 |
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 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.
This is a copy
84% identical to audit — 6 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
Scan the current project for Python anti-patterns and best practice violations.
For each issue found:
- Show the file and line
- Explain what's wrong
- Show the correct pattern
- Rate severity: critical / warning / info
Use the python-best-practices skill for reference on current best practices.
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 · 16 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A 0f53540ea1af
audit is a command published in the GitHub repository ofershap/python-best-practices (1 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 85 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 84% identical to audit, differing in 6 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
audit
Audit the current codebase for Go best practice violations.
notebook-review
Comprehensive review of Jupyter notebooks and Python scripts.
python-review
Comprehensive Python code review for PEP 8 compliance, type hints, security, and Pythonic idioms. Invokes the python-reviewer agent.
review-uv-script
Review uv Python script for PEP 723 compliance and best practices.
package-review
Review the current Python package for best-practice violations — project structure, pyproject.toml, typing, testing, CI/CD, documentation, versioning, API design, packaging, security, and developer experience.
review-react-code
A command that reviews React and TypeScript code, including how components are organised, how Hooks are used, how state is handled, and how the code performs.