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 claesbackman/AI-research-feedback --skill audit-analysisgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/claesbackman/AI-research-feedbackWrote 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/claesbackman/ai-research-feedback/audit-analysis)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/claesbackman/ai-research-feedback/audit-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/claesbackman/ai-research-feedback/audit-analysis.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- 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 | $0.00071 | $0.01022 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00511 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00204 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00102 |
Grade A, and why
audit-analysis 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 8d 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 — 68 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Audit Analysis Code
Find errors in changed empirical code before a referee does.
The audit runs in a subagent with a clean context. That isolation is the point: whoever wrote the code — including this session, if it helped — must not be able to steer the findings. Do not read the changed files yourself before launching, do not form a view, and do not answer the auditor's questions mid-run.
Phase 1: Establish scope
Set BASE from $ARGUMENTS if given, otherwise main.
Run, and stop with a short explanation if any of the first three fail:
git rev-parse --git-dir— must be a repositorygit rev-parse --verify BASE— the base ref must existgit diff --stat BASE— if empty, there is nothing to auditgit log BASE..HEAD --oneline— may legitimately be empty when the work is uncommitted, or when HEAD is BASE and only the working tree has changed. Note it and drop the commit-message check from the audit.
Report to the user in two or three lines: base ref, number of changed files, number of changed lines, and whether commit messages are available. Then launch immediately.
Phase 2: Launch the auditor
One Agent call, subagent_type: "general-purpose". Substitute BASE and pass this verbatim:
Review empirical research code adversarially. The author wants it broken now rather than by a referee. Read
git log BASE..HEADandgit diff BASE, then the changed files in full. Follow variables built outside the diff.Check, and report on each of:
- Claims vs. code: do comments and commit messages match what runs? Quote both sides of any disagreement.
- Sample: N before and after every filter, merge, and collapse. Take N from logs; write "N unverified" where there is no log. Flag undocumented drops.
- Merges: key, uniqueness on the side that needs it, fate of unmatched observations, whether
_mergeis inspected, duplicate id-period pairs after.- Variables: trace every regressor and outcome. Units, logs vs. levels, deflation, lag alignment. Does construction match the name?
- Silent failures: missings coerced to zero,
if x > 0true on missing,destring ... force,replacethat changes nothing, loops that skip. In Python,fillna(0), silent dtype coercion, chained assignment.- Estimation: clustering level and cluster count, what the fixed effects absorb, weights, whether estimation N matches the sample traced above.
Each finding: file, line, quoted excerpt, what is wrong, consequence for the results. Tag CONFIRMED (visible in the code) or SUSPECTED (needs the data). Style and naming are not findings. Order by consequence, worst first, ten max. Then one line per category: what you found, or that you found nothing. Close with the one thing you could not check without the data. Change nothing.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 68 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A 712a5c092697
audit-analysis is a skill published in the GitHub repository claesbackman/AI-research-feedback (477 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 1,022 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
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.
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…