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/sembraniteam/claude-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/sembraniteam/claude-plugins/audit-file)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/sembraniteam/claude-plugins/audit-file"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/sembraniteam/claude-plugins/audit-file/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/sembraniteam/claude-plugins/audit-file"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/sembraniteam/claude-plugins/audit-file.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 | $0.00023 | $0.00896 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00358 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00179 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00090 |
Grade A, and why
audit-file 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 — 72 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are running a focused, line-level security audit on a single file using the security-auditor plugin.
The target file is: $ARGUMENTS
If no file path was provided, ask: "Which file should I audit? Please provide the path."
Step 1 — Read and understand the file
Read the file at the provided path. Identify:
- File type (language, framework role: controller, model, service, config, etc.)
- What kind of input does this file receive? (HTTP params, database results, file system, IPC, etc.)
- What outputs or effects does it produce? (HTTP response, DB writes, file writes, shell execution, etc.)
Step 2 — Trace data flows
For each external input source, trace the data path through the file to all potential sinks:
- Dangerous sinks: SQL query construction, shell execution, file path assembly, template rendering, eval/exec, deserialization, HTTP response body, redirect target
- Intermediate transformations: note which ones sanitize/validate and which do not
Step 3 — Check each vulnerability category
Work through the OWASP Top 10 (A01–A10) + Extended Categories checklist from the secure-code-review skill, applied specifically to this file:
- Broken access control — does the file enforce authorization before sensitive operations? IDOR, CORS misconfiguration, SSRF (outbound HTTP calls with user-controlled URLs)
- Security misconfiguration — debug flags, verbose error messages, permissive CORS, missing security headers
- Software supply chain failures — any
import/require/useof third-party libraries? Flag for CVE check; unsigned/unverified build artifacts - Cryptographic failures — hash algorithms, encryption schemes, IV/salt handling
- Injection (SQL, NoSQL, OS, LDAP, template) — trace every DB call and exec
- Insecure design — missing rate limiting, trust boundary violations
- Authentication failures — session handling, token validation, password checks
- Software or data integrity failures — insecure deserialization (
pickle,yaml.load,JSON.parsewith__proto__), unsigned updates/plugins - Security logging & alerting failures — missing audit trail for sensitive ops, PII in logs, log injection
- Mishandling of exceptional conditions — verbose error messages leaking internals, fail-open logic, unhandled exceptions
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 · 72 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 4fc2bb142664
audit-file is a command published in the GitHub repository sembraniteam/claude-plugins (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 896 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
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.