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 arnabdeypolimi/claude_code_setup --skill auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/arnabdeypolimi/claude_code_setupWrote 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/arnabdeypolimi/claude_code_setup/audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/arnabdeypolimi/claude_code_setup/audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/arnabdeypolimi/claude_code_setup/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/arnabdeypolimi/claude_code_setup/audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/arnabdeypolimi/claude_code_setup/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 | $0.00054 | $0.01904 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00762 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00381 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00190 |
Grade A, and why
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 1mo 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.
This is a copy
86% identical to audit — 9 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 147 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
MANDATORY PREPARATION
Invoke /frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and the Context Gathering Protocol. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no design context exists yet, you MUST run /teach-impeccable first.
Run systematic technical quality checks and generate a comprehensive report. Don't fix issues — document them for other commands to address.
This is a code-level audit, not a design critique. Check what's measurable and verifiable in the implementation.
Diagnostic Scan
Run comprehensive checks across 5 dimensions. Score each dimension 0-4 using the criteria below.
1. Accessibility (A11y)
Check for:
- Contrast issues: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
- Missing ARIA: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
- Keyboard navigation: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
- Semantic HTML: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
- Alt text: Missing or poor image descriptions
- Form issues: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators
Score 0-4: 0=Inaccessible (fails WCAG A), 1=Major gaps (few ARIA labels, no keyboard nav), 2=Partial (some a11y effort, significant gaps), 3=Good (WCAG AA mostly met, minor gaps), 4=Excellent (WCAG AA fully met, approaches AAA)
2. Performance
Check for:
- Layout thrashing: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
- Expensive animations: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
- Missing optimization: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
- Bundle size: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
- Render performance: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
Score 0-4: 0=Severe issues (layout thrash, unoptimized everything), 1=Major problems (no lazy loading, expensive animations), 2=Partial (some optimization, gaps remain), 3=Good (mostly optimized, minor improvements possible), 4=Excellent (fast, lean, well-optimized)
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 147 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 3a475438b19d
audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository arnabdeypolimi/claude_code_setup (4 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 1,904 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to audit, differing in 9 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
accessibility-a11y
WCAG 2.2 compliance, ARIA patterns, keyboard navigation, screen readers, automated testing.
visual-proof
Capture before/after screenshot evidence of a web page at real breakpoints (375, 768, 1440) in both light and dark themes, using Playwright against a local dev server or a deployed URL. Use before starting any visual change to capture the current state, and again after to prove the delta. Also use when asked to "show…
tdd
Build new behavior test-first using strict Red-Green-Refactor cycles. Use this when you want to drive a new feature or behavior from failing tests before writing the implementation.
test-driven-development
Testing discipline that adapts to user tier and task type. Rigorous RED-GREEN-REFACTOR for critical code. Invisible testing for Builder-tier users. Pragmatic skip for trivial changes. The goal is confidence that the code works, not ceremony.
confidence-based-strictness
Use when the complexity or unfamiliarity of a task should increase guardrail enforcement. Scales verification depth based on how confident the system is in the correctness of the generated code.
writing-plans
Creates bite-sized (2-5 min) implementation plans with TDD flow, quality gate checkpoints, security considerations, and performance impact notes. Plans reference architecture.md constraints.