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/opkod-france/opkod-claude-code-pluginsWrote 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/opkod-france/opkod-claude-code-plugins/audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/opkod-france/opkod-claude-code-plugins/audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/opkod-france/opkod-claude-code-plugins/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/opkod-france/opkod-claude-code-plugins/audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/opkod-france/opkod-claude-code-plugins/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 | $0.00017 | $0.00442 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00221 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00088 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00044 |
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 8d 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.
What it actually says
Audit admin/src/**/*.{tsx,jsx} in the current plugin for Strapi Design System v2 violations. Follow the strapi-ui-design skill.
Checks
For each file under admin/src/, flag:
- Native HTML —
<button>,<input>,<select>,<textarea>→ should be DS components. styled-componentsimports → should useBox/Flex/Gridprops.- Inline
style={{...}}→ should use DS spacing/color props. - Hex color literals (e.g.
"#fff","#1a1a1a") → should use theme tokens. alert()/window.confirm()→ should useuseNotification/Dialog.ModalLayout(deprecated v4 API) → should useModal.Rootcompound API.- Path imports from
@strapi/design-system/Buttonetc. → should use root imports. - Missing
Field.Rootwrapper around standaloneTextInput/Select/etc. IconButtonwithoutlabelprop (accessibility).- Hand-rolled
<Main>+<Box>page header whenPage.Main+Layouts.Headeris canonical.
Output
## Strapi UI Audit
Files scanned: <n>
### Violations
- <file>:<line> — <issue> — Severity: HIGH|MED|LOW
Fix: <one-line suggestion>
### Summary
- <n> HIGH, <n> MED, <n> LOW
- Recommended next: `/strapi-ui-component <type>` to scaffold replacements, or invoke the strapi-ui-reviewer agent for per-file rewrites.
Read-only — do NOT edit files.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 41 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 4beb6d93bdf8
audit is a command published in the GitHub repository opkod-france/opkod-claude-code-plugins (9 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 442 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.
Other commands, from other repositories
critique
Design lens critique covering visual hierarchy, clarity, and anti-slop patterns — produces a findings table, no code edits unless asked. Use when the user wants a design review, says "what's wrong with this UI", or needs a second opinion before a handoff or presentation.
audit
A project review command that checks both the user interface and the code. It can inspect design rules, accessibility, performance, security, and code quality at different levels of depth.
hld-review
Review High-Level Design (HLD) against architecture principles and requirements.
pi-ui-review
UI/UX review via Gemini — accessibility, responsive design, component structure.
ui-flow-review
Review menus, HUD, navigation, and player flow from a UX perspective.
design-system-review
Analyze design token usage and component consistency.