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/w2ur/claude-code-setupWrote 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/w2ur/claude-code-setup/audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/w2ur/claude-code-setup/audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/w2ur/claude-code-setup/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/w2ur/claude-code-setup/audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/w2ur/claude-code-setup/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 | $0.00022 | $0.00291 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00116 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00058 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00029 |
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.
What it actually says
Run a full audit on the current project, dispatching two sub-agents in parallel.
Dispatch
Launch both agents simultaneously:
-
docs-checker (sonnet): full documentation and git hygiene audit.
- If
$0looks like a URL (starts withhttp): pass it as the canonical URL for URL verification. - Otherwise: run without URL verification.
- If
-
portfolio-audit (haiku): compliance check against portfolio standards.
Consolidation
After both agents complete, produce a single consolidated report:
## Audit Report: [project name]
### Documentation (docs-checker)
[summary of docs-checker findings]
### Compliance (portfolio-audit)
[summary of portfolio-audit findings]
### Actions Taken
- [list of automatic fixes made by docs-checker]
### Manual Actions Needed
- [list of issues requiring human intervention]
Post-audit
If any fixes were committed by docs-checker, remind the owner to review before pushing:
git log --oneline -5
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 · 46 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 09b82fc018a3
audit is a command published in the GitHub repository w2ur/claude-code-setup (2 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 291 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
sonarqube
Analyze SonarCloud quality issues for a specific PR.
review-pr
Perform a comprehensive code review of a pull request.
refactor
Analyze code for SOLID violations and suggest targeted improvements.
pr
Analyze changes, detect scope issues, and create a well-structured PR.
audit-codebase
Codebase health audit scoring 7 categories with progression plan.
refactor-clean
Refactor provided code for cleanliness, maintainability, and alignment with SOLID principles and modern best practices — no over-engineering.