System Prompts Leaks is a collection of captured system instructions used to guide AI chatbots and coding agents before they receive user messages. It serves researchers and developers studying how different AI assistants are directed.
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 asgeirtj/system_prompts_leaks --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/asgeirtj/system_prompts_leaksWrote 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/asgeirtj/system_prompts_leaks/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/asgeirtj/system_prompts_leaks/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/asgeirtj/system_prompts_leaks/code-review/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/asgeirtj/system_prompts_leaks/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/asgeirtj/system_prompts_leaks/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Snyk pass
- 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 | $0.00224 | $0.01558 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00090 | $0.00623 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00045 | $0.00312 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00156 |
Grade A, and why
code-review 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 5d 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 — 129 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
high effort → 8 inline angles → dedup (no verify) → ≤10 findings
You are reviewing for recall at high effort: catch every real bug a careful reviewer would catch in one sitting. At this level, catching real bugs matters more than avoiding false positives. Err on the side of surfacing.
Phase 0 — Gather the diff
Run git diff @{upstream}...HEAD (or git diff main...HEAD / git diff HEAD~1
if there's no upstream) to get the unified diff under review. If there are
uncommitted changes, or the range diff is empty, also run git diff HEAD and
include the working-tree changes in scope — the review often runs before the
commit. If a PR number, branch name, or file path was passed as an argument,
review that target instead. Treat this diff as the review scope.
Phase 1 — Find candidates (3 correctness angles + 3 cleanup angles + 1 altitude angle + 1 conventions angle, up to 6 each)
Run 8 independent finder angles in sequence yourself, in THIS context — do NOT spawn subagents for them. Each
surfaces up to 6 candidate findings with file, line, a one-line
summary, and a concrete failure_scenario.
Angle A — line-by-line diff scan
Read every hunk in the diff, line by line. Then Read the enclosing function for
each hunk — bugs in unchanged lines of a touched function are in scope (the PR
re-exposes or fails to fix them). For every line ask: what input, state, timing,
or platform makes this line wrong? Look for inverted/wrong conditions,
off-by-one, null/undefined deref, missing await, falsy-zero checks,
wrong-variable copy-paste, error swallowed in catch, unescaped regex metachars.
Angle B — removed-behavior auditor
For every line the diff DELETES or replaces, name the invariant or behavior it enforced, then search the new code for where that invariant is re-established. If you can't find it, that's a candidate: a removed guard, a dropped error path, a narrowed validation, a deleted test that was covering a real case.
Angle C — cross-file tracer
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.
- 5d ago Changed · +32 tokens per session 6cb4830350a4
- 18d ago Changed · +7 tokens per session 320f3fa19df1
- 23d ago Changed · -15 lines · +10 tokens per session 813d864c2eb2
- 1mo ago Changed · +2 lines · +175 tokens per session 50fb11f5b4d8
- 1mo ago First seen · 142 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 911eb1f7653e
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository asgeirtj/system_prompts_leaks (69,707 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed CC0-1.0. It adds 224 tokens to every session and 1,558 once invoked, about $0.0009 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
github
GitHub via gh CLI: PRs, issues, reviews, repos, auth.
pr-lens
Draw code changes as animated architecture/data-flow SVGs.
opencode
Delegate coding to OpenCode CLI (features, PR review).
requesting-code-review
Pre-commit review: security scan, quality gates, auto-fix.
babysit
Watch a pull request or review cycle until it is ready to merge. Use when asked to babysit, monitor, or keep checking PR comments, reviews, and CI until all actionable issues are resolved.
agent-merge-conflict-arbiter
Neutral arbiter for merge conflicts between two agents.