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 baphuongna/pi-crew --skill iterative-auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/baphuongna/pi-crewWrote 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/baphuongna/pi-crew/iterative-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/baphuongna/pi-crew/iterative-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/baphuongna/pi-crew/iterative-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/baphuongna/pi-crew/iterative-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/baphuongna/pi-crew/iterative-audit.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to medium
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 →
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 219 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 317 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
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 | $0.00048 | $0.03675 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.01837 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00735 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00367 |
Grade A, and why
iterative-audit scanned grade A with 1 finding 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 9d 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.
Runs shell commandslowCapability
Expected in a hook, worth knowing in a rule or an instructions file.
- `execSync(command)` → switch to `execFileSync(program, args[])` How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 331 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Iterative Audit
Distilled from 19 rounds of auditing pi-crew on itself (v0.5.5 → v0.5.14): ~70 issues fixed, 286 tests added, 9 security improvements, 2 performance improvements.
The core insight: a single round of audit finds the easy 30% of bugs. The remaining 70% only surfaces through 5-20+ targeted rounds, each with a specific focus. After round 5+ you find HIGH severity bugs that round 1 missed. After round 10+ you find issues that no human reviewer would catch in a single pass.
Operating Stance
- One focus per round. Each round targets one of the 7 patterns below. Don't try to fix everything in one pass.
- Source verification is mandatory. Never trust audit docs or previous round reports — always read the actual code. ~30% of issues from prior rounds are false positives or already fixed.
- Document every finding with file:line. "Sandbox env allow-list" is useless. "src/runtime/sandbox.ts:70 — process.env full leak" is actionable.
- Verify the team actually applied changes. After any team run, run
git diffand inspect. ~20% of team runs silently fail to apply changes. - Don't publish without explicit user confirmation. Audit work compounds; releasing in the middle of a round leaves the codebase in a half-hardened state.
The 7 Patterns (rotate through these)
After 19 rounds, every issue found falls into one of these 7 categories. Use this to plan each round's focus.
1. L1 Cleanup (decoration, low value, easy)
What: Replace console.error / console.warn / process.stderr.write with logInternalError() from utils/internal-error.ts.
Why: console.error may not be visible in JSON-RPC mode or when stderr is redirected. logInternalError is the project-wide pattern; missing it means errors are silently dropped.
How to find them:
rg -n 'console\.(error|warn|log)' src/
rg -n 'process\.stderr\.write' src/
Rule: Skip internal-error.ts:5 itself (it's the implementation). Skip background-runner.ts:146 (overrides console.error for testing). Skip parent-guard.ts:37 (exit-time log must fire synchronously).
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 331 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A fea8b55a5701
iterative-audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository baphuongna/pi-crew (52 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 3,675 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (runs shell commands). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
adversarial-reviewer
Adversarial code review that assumes bugs exist and hunts for them. Use when asked to review code, find bugs, audit for correctness, stress-test a PR, or when someone says "tear this apart" or "what's wrong with this". Give no benefit of the doubt — every line is guilty until proven innocent.
gsd-ns-review
Route to the appropriate quality / review skill based on the user's intent. gsd-code-review-fix was absorbed by gsd-code-review --fix in #2790.
issue
Use when starting a chain from a GitHub issue — turning an issue URL or number into a triaged, planned, dispatched, and reviewed pull request. Classifies the thread (bug → root-cause discipline, feature → plan chain, question → drafted reply), synthesizes a spec from the issue's own acceptance criteria, then runs the…
gitnexus
A code-graph analysis add-on for examining an existing codebase, including symbols, call paths, execution flows, and effects across repositories. It can query GitNexus through its command-line or MCP interfaces.
cleanup-code-inspections
Reduce technical debt and improve code quality by systematically resolving static analysis warnings.
superlint
This skill describes the mandatory standard operating procedure for using our internal SuperLint tool. Use this when tasks require fixing code quality issues according to corporate standards.