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.
npx skills add afrizzal/ratchet --skill ratchet-auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/afrizzal/ratchetWrote 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/skills/afrizzal/ratchet/ratchet-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/afrizzal/ratchet/ratchet-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/afrizzal/ratchet/ratchet-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/skills/afrizzal/ratchet/ratchet-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/afrizzal/ratchet/ratchet-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 | $0.00111 | $0.02354 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00056 | $0.01177 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00471 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00235 |
Grade A, and why
ratchet-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 12d 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 — 106 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Ratchet Audit — from codebase to executable backlog
Your output is not a report card; it is work orders. Every finding must survive verification down to file:line and arrive with acceptance criteria a later session can actually run. A finding that can't be turned into a checkable item belongs in AUDIT.md's notes, not in the backlog.
Invocation
/ratchet-audit [focus] [--depth quick|standard|deep]
focus— optional:security,performance,tests,data,frontend, or free text ("multi-tenant isolation"). Default: full sweep.--depth—quick(no subagents, top risks only),standard(default),deep(more agents, adversarial verification pass).
Phase 1 — Fingerprint the project (yourself, fast)
- Read the manifests and configs:
package.json/pyproject.toml/go.mod/Cargo.toml, lockfiles, CI workflows, Dockerfiles, env examples, top-level README/CLAUDE.md/CONTRIBUTING. - Determine: stack, entry points, how it's tested (capture the exact commands — they become Global checks), how it's deployed, and the domain axes that matter (multi-tenant? auth? payments? background jobs?).
- Baseline reality check (mandatory). Run each candidate Global check cold — fresh clone semantics: no incremental cache, no dev-server-generated types, the way CI runs it. A check that passes warm but fails cold is a non-deterministic check and is worse than useless as a gate (the loop will read a false green). When you find one: (a) pin the Global check to its deterministic form (e.g.
tsc --noEmit --incremental false, nottsc --noEmit), and (b) if the cold run is red, that is not a "skip" — it is your first backlog item, tagged[BASELINE], because the loop cannot ratchet forward from a red baseline. Never emit a backlog whose own Global checks are red with no[BASELINE]item to fix them. - Pick audit dimensions by project shape — typical for a web app: data layer/schema · API surface/authz · business logic/duplication/fragility · tests/CI/ops · frontend/UX debt. A CLI or library gets different cuts (public API, error handling, packaging, docs). Don't force irrelevant dimensions.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 106 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 0900b7692c34
ratchet-audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository afrizzal/ratchet (6 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 111 tokens to every session and 2,354 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 skills, from other repositories
review
Review code with parallel agents — tests, security, Ecto, LiveView, Oban. Use after implementation to catch bugs and anti-patterns before committing.
audit
Project health audit and health check — architecture, performance, tests, dependencies, code quality. Use when assessing overall project health, before releases, or after refactors.
pr-review
Address feedback left on a GitHub pull request: fetch unresolved review threads, make agreed Elixir/Phoenix code fixes, reply, and resolve. Use for a PR URL/number or reviewer comments. NOT for pre-PR review, findings triage, or CI monitoring.
phx-pr-review
Address feedback left on a GitHub pull request: fetch unresolved review threads, make agreed Elixir/Phoenix code fixes, reply, and resolve. Use for a PR URL/number or reviewer comments. NOT for pre-PR review, findings triage, or CI monitoring.
boundaries
Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls, validating dependencies, before splitting modules, or reviewing architecture.
challenge
Challenge mode reviews - rigorous questioning before approving changes. Use when you want thorough scrutiny of Ecto changes, LiveView events, OTP designs, or PR readiness.