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 bhumitschaudhry/Slopnought --skill slopnought-auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bhumitschaudhry/SlopnoughtWrote 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/bhumitschaudhry/slopnought/slopnought-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bhumitschaudhry/slopnought/slopnought-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bhumitschaudhry/slopnought/slopnought-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/bhumitschaudhry/slopnought/slopnought-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bhumitschaudhry/slopnought/slopnought-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 | $0.00006 | $0.02569 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00003 | $0.01285 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00514 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00257 |
Grade A, and why
slopnought-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 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.
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 — 147 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Codebase Refactoring Mode — /slopnought-audit
This mode is invoked when the user runs /slopnought-audit (or asks in equivalent terms: "audit this codebase for maintainability," "find tech debt," "what's wrong with this code," "help us clean this up"). It analyzes an existing codebase, produces a prioritized, evidence-based remediation plan, and — only with the user's direction — applies improvements.
This is inherently a larger, more deliberate process than code generation mode. Resist the urge to start "fixing" things the moment something looks wrong; the audit's value comes from seeing the whole picture before touching anything, and from giving the user control over scope and risk.
Overview of the workflow
- Scope the audit — figure out what's in bounds before scanning everything blindly.
- Scan — systematically work through the codebase against the checklist below.
- Score and prioritize — turn raw findings into a ranked list based on risk × effort.
- Report — produce a clear, evidence-backed remediation plan the user can act on.
- Remediate (optional, by consent) — apply fixes, starting with the highest-priority/lowest-risk items, in reviewable increments.
- Preserve context — write ADRs and documentation so the improved state doesn't silently decay again.
Step 1: Scope the audit
Before scanning, clarify (ask the user if it's not already obvious from their request):
- Whole codebase, or a specific area? ("audit the payments module" vs. "audit everything")
- Read-only analysis, or analysis + remediation? Some users want only the report; others want fixes applied.
- Any known pain points already? Existing complaints ("the auth module is a nightmare," "we keep breaking the checkout flow") are valuable signal — they tell you where to look first and validate findings against lived experience, not just static analysis.
- Constraints? Languages/frameworks the team won't budge on, deadlines, areas that are intentionally legacy and out of scope (e.g., "ignore the old v1 API, it's being deprecated anyway").
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 · 147 lines · 6 tokens per session scan A cabd8523cf43
slopnought-audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository bhumitschaudhry/Slopnought (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 6 tokens to every session and 2,569 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review-and-quality
Conducts multi-axis code review. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Use when you need to assess code quality across multiple dimensions before it enters the main branch.
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…
code-simplification
Simplifies code for clarity. Use when refactoring code for clarity without changing behavior. Use when code works but is harder to read, maintain, or extend than it should be. Use when reviewing code that has accumulated unnecessary complexity.
ponytail-lazy-senior-dev
Applies the "lazy senior developer" mindset. Use this skill whenever generating, modifying, reviewing code, or fixing bugs to prioritize code reuse, minimalism, YAGNI principles, and root-cause fixes. Also use whenever the user says "ponytail", "be lazy", "lazy mode", "simplest solution", "minimal solution", "yagni"…
omni-dev
Omni-expert principal software architect. Triggers on requests for app development, coding, refactoring, or architectural design. Enforces clean code, clean architecture, deep reasoning, mandatory testing, and strict anti-ambiguity protocols.
sdlc-code-review
Language-agnostic workflow for code reviews and security audits using a Two-Axis (Standards vs Spec) approach against Clean Code/SOLID principles, generating formal refactoring plans.