guard-skills is a collection of review skills for coding agents that inspect code, tests, and documentation for common AI-generated problems. Developers run the relevant guard after an agent changes a project, before presenting, committing, or merging the work. The catalogue entries are individual guard skills from this collection.
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 amElnagdy/guard-skills --skill wp-guardgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/amElnagdy/guard-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/amelnagdy/guard-skills/wp-guard)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/amelnagdy/guard-skills/wp-guard"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/amelnagdy/guard-skills/wp-guard/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/amelnagdy/guard-skills/wp-guard"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/amelnagdy/guard-skills/wp-guard.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk pass
- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Anti-Refusal · line 70 Skill instructs the agent to omit warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Stripping safety caveats hides risk from the user and is a common jailbreak preamble.Fix: Remove instructions that suppress warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Let the agent surface safety-relevant caveats to the user.
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 | $0.00209 | $0.02237 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00105 | $0.01118 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00042 | $0.00447 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00224 |
Grade B, and why
wp-guard scanned grade B with 2 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 11d 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.
Strips warnings and disclaimersmediumAnti-refusal
Omitting safety caveats hides risk from the user and is a common jailbreak preamble.
8. Would this survive WPCS (`WordPress-Extra` + `WordPress-Security`) without warnings you cannot justify? Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
5. **Use the platform; don't reinvent it.** Outbound HTTP via `wp_remote_get()`/`wp_remote_post()`, never curl. Assets via `wp_enqueue_script()`/`wp_enqueue_style()`, never echoed `<script>`/`<style>` tags. Scheduling vi How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 104 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
WP Guard
You are reviewing generated or changed WordPress code before it ships. Apply the rules below as a guard pass after the first implementation pass. Be a sharp reviewer, not a pedantic one: flag what creates vulnerabilities, breaks translations, or melts servers — ignore cosmetic preferences WPCS tooling already handles.
These rules exist because AI agents produce WordPress code with systematic failures: raw echo of request data, AJAX handlers with neither nonce nor capability check, SQL built by string interpolation, English hardcoded into user-facing strings, posts_per_page => -1 on sites with a million posts, and hand-rolled replacements for APIs core already ships. Each one looks fine in a demo and fails in production.
How to use this skill
Guard-pass mode (recommended): after WordPress code has been generated or edited, apply the rules to the diff or target files, then run the self-check before delivery. Fix violations before showing the user.
Live mode (explicit): when the user invokes this skill before writing WordPress code, apply the same rules while writing, then run the self-check before delivery.
Review mode (the user asks you to review, audit, or rate WordPress code): walk references/review-checklist.md against the target files and produce a structured findings report. Do not edit code in review mode unless asked.
Pair this skill with clean-code-guard when both are installed: clean-code-guard owns generic code quality; wp-guard owns the WordPress layer.
Adapt to the project first
- Read the project's agent instructions (CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md),
phpcs.xml/WPCS config, andcomposer.json. Project conventions win on conflict. - Identify the established prefix (functions, options, meta keys, handles) and the minimum supported WP/PHP versions. Match both.
- Detect context: WooCommerce APIs in play → apply woo-guard alongside this skill when it is installed; otherwise apply WooCommerce's HPOS, CRUD, and checkout rules from its developer documentation. Multilingual site (WPML/Polylang/multisite) → i18n rules are blocking, not advisory.
- Read one neighboring file before writing. Mirror its error handling, hook registration style, and escaping habits — unless they violate the security rules below, which are non-negotiable.
What ships with it
6 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.
- 11d ago First seen · 104 lines · 209 tokens per session scan B c3308c1d26c1
wp-guard is a skill published in the GitHub repository amElnagdy/guard-skills (1,232 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 209 tokens to every session and 2,237 once invoked, about $0.0010 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it B with 2 findings (strips warnings and disclaimers, makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…