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 full-auditgit 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/full-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/alexzio00/sovereign-skills/full-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alexzio00/sovereign-skills/full-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/alexzio00/sovereign-skills/full-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alexzio00/sovereign-skills/full-audit.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 | $0.00205 | $0.04955 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00102 | $0.02478 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00041 | $0.00991 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00496 |
Grade A, and why
full-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 4d 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 — 175 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Full Audit — Exhaustive Area Review (v1.2)
Dominant Variable
Accuracy of the coverage claim — the word "exhaustive" ships with a method label or it doesn't ship at all. The moment an unreviewed area gets reported as reviewed, this skill has failed its own purpose.
Trigger
/full-audit [area]· "audit everything" · "exhaustive audit" · "full audit" · "double-check everything"- Default mode on any of the above:
AUDIT_ONLY. These are analysis requests, not execution requests — see Execution Modes below. Advancing toPROPOSEorAPPLY_APPROVEDin the same invocation requires the user to say so explicitly (e.g. "audit everything and apply the fixes", "전수감사하고 바로 고쳐줘").
Discard If
- Single file / single question needs checking → use a regular code review instead
- The goal is a harness-maturity score against a fixed checklist → use a fixed-checklist scoring tool instead
- The goal is a single docs-vs-code drift check → too narrow a scope for this
- An identical-scope full audit finished within the last 7 days and nothing has changed → just diff against the existing coverage map instead
Key Assumptions
- Target area is agreed in Phase 0 — if not, don't start without an area table.
- Deterministic sweeping (scripts/grep) is available for the target — if not, skip Phase 1 and never claim "exhaustive" from Phase 2 (LLM review) alone.
- A prior coverage map can shrink the scope via diff — if not, do a full re-scan.
Execution Modes: AUDIT_ONLY / PROPOSE / APPLY_APPROVED
This skill keeps analysis and execution in separate, explicitly-named modes. A trigger phrase like "audit everything" or "분석해줘" selects a mode — it does not, by itself, authorize any file write.
| Mode | When active | What runs | Writable scope |
|---|---|---|---|
AUDIT_ONLY (default) |
Any bare audit/analysis trigger, with no separate execution request | Phase 0-3 (scope, deterministic sweep, content review, judgment) + Phase 5 (coverage map) | None — read-only. No Edit/Write to any target file, protected or not. |
PROPOSE |
User asks for fix proposals (after an AUDIT_ONLY pass, or up front) |
AUDIT_ONLY output + a listed fix/addition bucket (Phase 4 framing, nothing applied) |
None — still read-only, output is a proposal list |
APPLY_APPROVED |
User explicitly approves specific items or the fix bucket as a whole ("이 항목들 적용해", "fix bucket 적용해") | Applies only the items the user named as approved | Limited to the approved items. A deny-listed path (rules/CLAUDE.md/settings — see Safety Layers) is reachable only here, only for that one named item, with its deny lifted for that single edit and restored immediately after — never as a routine step of "the edit procedure." |
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.
- 4d ago Changed · +20 lines · +44 tokens per session 7594d1612f22
- 12d ago First seen · 155 lines · 161 tokens per session scan A 14acb7b43c7d
full-audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository AlexZio00/sovereign-skills (129 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 205 tokens to every session and 4,955 once invoked, about $0.0010 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
doubt-driven-development
Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands. Use when you want every assumption cross-examined before proceeding, when stress-testing a plan for hidden failure modes, when correctness matters more than speed, when working in unfamiliar code, when stakes are high…
systemic-issue-triage
Trigger: new issue, bug report, triage, backlog, issue flood, community report, root cause, dead-end, blocked user. Attack issues by root class, never one-by-one; fixes must shrink the system, not grow it.
issue-root-resolution
Trigger: root audit, atacar la raíz, issue roots, backlog roots, mechanism map, deletion-driven fix, resolver issues de raíz, close outdated issues. Audit and resolve issue clusters by verified root cause.
rdd-defect-workflow
Trigger: RDD, receipt-driven development, review authority, receipt/lineage, correction/recovery, delivery gate/kill switch, bounded review defects. Guide work.
incident-response
Incident management lifecycle — triage, communicate, mitigate, postmortem. Three modes — new (start incident), update (status update), postmortem (blameless RCA report).
Sverklo Code Intelligence
Gives you deep codebase understanding — semantic search, blast-radius analysis, PR review, and health audits.