Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Codename-11/SubFrame. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Codename-11/SubFrame/main/.agents/skills/sub-audit/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Codename-11/SubFrameWrote 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/codename-11/subframe/sub-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/codename-11/subframe/sub-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/codename-11/subframe/sub-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/codename-11/subframe/sub-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/codename-11/subframe/sub-audit.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00029 | $0.00687 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00275 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00137 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00069 |
Grade A, and why
sub-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 85 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
SubFrame Audit
Run a thorough audit on recent changes, combining code review and documentation checks.
Dynamic Context
Recent commits (last 15):
!git log --oneline --no-decorate -15 2>/dev/null || echo "No git history"
Files changed vs main:
!git diff --name-only main...HEAD 2>/dev/null | head -40
Instructions
Argument: $ARGUMENTS
The argument should describe the scope to audit. If empty, audit all changes since the last merge to main.
Phase 1: Identify Scope
Determine which files to audit:
- If argument specifies a feature/scope, identify the relevant files
- If empty, use
git diff --name-only main...HEADto find all changed files - Group files by layer (e.g., backend, frontend, shared, config, tests)
Phase 2: Code Review (spawn agent)
Spawn a code review agent (feature-dev:code-reviewer subagent type) to review the changed files. The agent should check for:
- Critical bugs — null/undefined access, race conditions, unhandled errors, infinite loops
- Type safety —
as anycasts, missing type imports, loose typing where strict types exist - Platform issues — Windows path handling, file system edge cases
- Security — command injection, XSS in rendered content, path traversal
- Logic errors — off-by-one, incorrect conditions, missing edge cases
Phase 3: Documentation Audit (spawn agent)
Spawn an explore agent (Explore subagent type) to check documentation completeness:
- AGENTS.md — Are all modules/components listed?
- changelog.md — Does [Unreleased] reflect all new features?
- PROJECT_NOTES.md — Are architecture decisions documented?
- STRUCTURE.json — Is it up to date? (compare module count with actual files)
Phase 4: Report
Present findings in this format:
## Audit Report
### Critical Issues (must fix)
1. [FILE:LINE] Description — severity, impact
### Important Issues (should fix)
1. [FILE:LINE] Description — severity, impact
### Documentation Gaps
1. [FILE] What's missing
### Suggestions (nice to have)
1. Description
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 · 85 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 25dfe92b14ac
sub-audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository Codename-11/SubFrame (10 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 687 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
refactoring-csharp
Rename and refactor C# symbols in a .NET solution or multi-solution monorepo with a one-shot Roslyn CLI. Use when the user asks to rename a symbol, preview impact, update references across a solution, or refactor shared projects across several solutions.
agentic-readiness
Audit and improve repositories for reliable agentic work across Codex and Codex App, Claude Code, and OpenCode. Use when reviewing AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md quality and discovery, instruction routing in monorepos or meta-repos, agent settings, MCP configuration, skills, subagents, context budgets, or repository…
code-that-fits-in-your-head
Software-engineering heuristics based on Mark Seemann's Code That Fits in Your Head (2021), updated for agent-driven development. Use when writing or reviewing code, refactoring accidental complexity or a Big Ball of Mud, controlling technical or architectural debt in generated code, designing APIs and invariants…
code-review
Use when reviewing code for bugs, security issues, performance problems, or adherence to best practices. Provides structured code review with severity levels and actionable feedback.
intuitive-shape
Shape unsettled product ideas into bounded bets before planning; excludes settled fixes and approved execution.
intuitive-doc
Maintain README.md, ARCHITECTURE.md, STATUS.md, and docs/human/ when they drift or need cleanup.