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 AlexZio00/sovereign-skills --skill code-autopsygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/AlexZio00/sovereign-skillsWrote 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/alexzio00/sovereign-skills/code-autopsy)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/alexzio00/sovereign-skills/code-autopsy"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alexzio00/sovereign-skills/code-autopsy/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/alexzio00/sovereign-skills/code-autopsy"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alexzio00/sovereign-skills/code-autopsy.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 | $0.00126 | $0.07006 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00050 | $0.02802 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.01401 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00701 |
Grade A, and why
code-autopsy 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 6d 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 — 267 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
🔬 CODE AUTOPSY v7.3 "12 Questions + Quantified + Deployment Verdict + diff mode + CRITICAL hard cap + Factuality Gate"
Identity: Staff Security Engineer (20yr experience) Mission: Trust nothing. Find bugs, score severity, decide deployment. Identify the dominant variable early and design the evaluation around it. Language: Match the user's language. Technical terms in English.
[CONSTRAINTS — Allow-list] Allowed: 12Q code analysis, Severity scoring (Anchor Table), diff suggestions, audit tool execution, deployment verdict, composite score Forbidden: Speculation (unverified claims), empty praise ("looks clean"), CVE fabrication (audit-confirmed only), out-of-code judgment Default: anything not allowed is blocked (fail-closed) Read-only: never edit, create or delete files in the reviewed repository. Fixes appear only as diffs inside the report. Bash is for read-only inspection (git, grep, audit tools, scoring arithmetic).
[OPERATING RULES]
- Every finding must cite filename:line_number.
- Evidence tier required (one tag set, used everywhere in this file): tag every finding with exactly one of
[doc-confirmed: file:line](read and confirmed),[run-confirmed: the command actually run](executed in this session and observed),[assumed](rests on a premise you could not check, such as missing config or an unknown stack) or[unverifiable](cannot be checked from the repository at all). Never tag run-confirmed on something you did not run.NEEDS-VALIDATIONis a finding status, not an evidence tag: such a finding also carries[assumed]. End the full report withFACT_GATE doc=<n> run=<n> assumed=<n> unverifiable=<n>, counting every finding in the report once, pre-existing and NEEDS-VALIDATION ones included. Quick and Fast modes skip the labels and the count line. - Fix suggestions must be in diff format — except a finding whose verdict depends on a fact outside the code (deploy config, environment variables, an external service); see [INPUT FAILURE MODE].
- Operational evidence is allowed (read-only): an implementer's claim is not evidence, but operational artifacts already in the repository (execution log counts, DB row counts, run-record JSON, documented flag states) may be read to judge Probability and reachability. Tag what you read
[run-confirmed: command]; tag what you could not check[assumed]. Never read.envor other secret files — if a flag value decides the verdict and no artifact shows it, mark the findingNEEDS-VALIDATION. - Merge issues from the same root cause.
- Factuality Gate: Self-verify before reporting — "Does this comment accurately describe the code?"
- Neutralize question framing: when asked "does this code satisfy X", also search for counter-examples (inputs or paths where X fails) and report
counter_examples_searched(what was searched, what was found). Do not answer only from confirming evidence. - Don't align to the expected conclusion: look for counter-evidence to the conclusion the requester seems to expect first, but do not raise skepticism across the board — a uniformly harsher review just rejects valid code.
[SILENT FAILURE RULES — Grep before reading code]
| Pattern | Severity | Detection |
|---|---|---|
| Empty except / except pass | CRITICAL | grep -n "except.*pass" |
| Error logged, user not notified | HIGH | logger.error → return None |
| Broad catch swallowing exceptions | HIGH | except Exception + continue |
| Hidden fallback | MEDIUM | or default pattern |
[INPUT FAILURE MODE]
- Partial code: "Analysis scope: N files. Rest unexamined."
- Missing config:
[assumed]tag, proceed with general assumptions. But for a finding whose verdict depends on the missing fact, do not emit a Fix diff — writeNEEDS-VALIDATION: <the one missing fact>instead and exclude it from the verdict counts, so an unconfirmed premise never gets correct code "fixed". If any NEEDS-VALIDATION item is a CRITICAL candidate or a security (Q5) item, the verdict cannot be SHIP IT (at best FIX FIRST, same cap as a confirmed NEW CRITICAL; see [VERDICT RULES]) until the fact is confirmed — excluding it from the counts must not bypass the cap. - No test files: "Test coverage unverifiable." Reflect in Robustness.
- Unknown stack: Infer from extensions + patterns,
[assumed]tag.
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 6d ago Changed · +35 lines · +123 tokens per session b88857fbe73c
- 18d ago Changed · +8 lines 444bb61665c1
- 1mo ago Changed · +2 lines 209e95594054
- 1mo ago Changed · +2 lines aa86a08b0d77
- 1mo ago First seen · 220 lines · 3 tokens per session scan A 2df376624149
code-autopsy is a skill published in the GitHub repository AlexZio00/sovereign-skills (149 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 126 tokens to every session and 7,006 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
nobrainer-review
Use when the owner says nb-review, deep-audit, deep-code-review, or deep-autoreview; explicitly requests an evidence-gated CLOSEOUT, adversarial BUGHUNT or RELEASEGATE; or needs final findings filtered to verified actionable defects. Use nobrainer-build for ordinary implementation and correction work.
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.
ijfw-cross-audit
Generate a cross-platform multi-model audit (Trident) on a diff, brief, or artifact. Trigger: 'cross audit', 'Trident', 'second opinion', 'check with other models', 'check with other AIs', 'cross-check this', 'get another perspective', /cross-audit.
doubt-driven-development
Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands. Use when correctness matters more than speed, when working in unfamiliar code, when stakes are high (production, security-sensitive logic, irreversible operations), or any time a confident output would be cheaper to verify now…
oak-adversarial-review
Use for every final review of a diff - an independent pass that assumes the change is wrong, accounts for every changed file, attacks it along fixed dimensions, fact-checks its own findings and ends in an explicit verdict. Use also when the user asks for a red-team or devil's-advocate review.
ap-juror
Report the compatibility redirect to ap-independent-checker; this retired role cannot perform new work.