Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to agent-sh/agentsys. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/agent-sh/agentsys/main/.kiro/skills/enhance-cross-file/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/agent-sh/agentsysWrote 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/agent-sh/agentsys/enhance-cross-file)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/agent-sh/agentsys/enhance-cross-file"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/agent-sh/agentsys/enhance-cross-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/skills/agent-sh/agentsys/enhance-cross-file"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/agent-sh/agentsys/enhance-cross-file.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00025 | $0.00859 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00430 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00172 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00086 |
Grade A, and why
enhance-cross-file scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 9d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 111 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
enhance-cross-file
Analyze cross-file semantic consistency across agents, skills, and workflows.
Parse Arguments
const args = '$ARGUMENTS'.split(' ').filter(Boolean);
const targetPath = args.find(a => !a.startsWith('--')) || '.';
Purpose
Detects issues that span multiple files - things single-file analysis misses:
- Tools used in prompt body but not declared in frontmatter
- Agent references that don't exist
- Duplicate instructions across files (maintenance burden)
- Contradictory rules (ALWAYS vs NEVER conflicts)
- Orphaned agents not referenced by any workflow
- Skill tool mismatches (allowed-tools vs actual usage)
Workflow
-
Run Analyzer - Execute the JavaScript analyzer to get findings:
node -e "const a = require('./lib/enhance/cross-file-analyzer.js'); console.log(JSON.stringify(a.analyze('.'), null, 2));"For a specific path:
a.analyze('./plugins/enhance') -
Parse Results - The analyzer returns JSON with
summaryandfindings -
Report - Return findings grouped by category
The JavaScript analyzer (lib/enhance/cross-file-analyzer.js) implements all cross-file detection. The patterns below are reference documentation.
Detection Patterns
1. Tool Consistency (MEDIUM Certainty)
tool_not_in_allowed_list: Tool used in prompt body but not in frontmatter tools: list
# Frontmatter declares:
tools: Read, Grep
# But body uses:
Use Write({ file_path: "/out" }) # <- Not declared!
skill_tool_mismatch: Skill's allowed-tools doesn't match actual tool usage in skill body
2. Workflow Consistency (MEDIUM Certainty)
missing_workflow_agent: subagent_type: "plugin:agent-name" references non-existent agent
orphaned_prompt: Agent file exists but no workflow references it (may be entry point - check manually)
incomplete_phase_transition: Workflow phase mentions "Phase N" but no corresponding section
3. Instruction Consistency (MEDIUM Certainty)
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 111 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A 699cd0232521
enhance-cross-file is a skill published in the GitHub repository agent-sh/agentsys (984 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 859 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
refactor
Guides a refactor, cleanup, or restructure with the right decomposition. Use when the user asks to refactor, simplify, extract, or modernize code.
pre-publish-review
Nuclear-grade 12-agent pre-publish release gate. Runs /get-unpublished-changes to detect all changes since last npm release, spawns up to 10 ultrabrain agents for deep per-change analysis, invokes /review-work (orchestrator manual QA plus one gate reviewer) for holistic review, and 1 oracle for overall release…
work-with-pr
Full PR lifecycle in a fresh task-owned git worktree: implement via the ulw-loop skill with mandatory evidence-bound manual QA → reviewer-readable English PR → verification loop (CI + Cubic, where Cubic is skipped only when its quota is exhausted) → merge by default → worktree cleanup. Decomposes one task into the…
remove-ai-slops
Removes AI-generated code smells from branch changes or an explicit file list behind regression tests. Use when the user asks to clean up, deslop, or remove AI-slop patterns from recent changes.
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.
tech-debt-audit
Thorough, file-cited technical debt audit across 9 dimensions using AST-grep (tree-sitter), grep, LSP, and language-native tooling. Produces TECHDEBTAUDIT.md with severity, effort estimates, and prioritized fixes. Use when asked for codebase health check, tech debt audit, architecture review, code quality assessment…