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 agentmods add skills/david405/harness-kit/code-auditnpx skills add David405/harness-kit --skill code-auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/David405/harness-kitWhat 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 | $0.00081 | $0.00436 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00041 | $0.00218 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00087 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00044 |
Grade A, and why
code-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 yesterday.
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.
What it actually says
Code audit
Kit-owned. Edit in the harness-kit repo, not in the consumer repo.
Periodic, never per sprint. The gate asks "can this diff ship?"; this asks "where should we invest refactoring effort, and what is safe to touch?"
When to use
Milestone, quarter, pre-hardening, pre-handover, or before a large refactor.
When not to use
Per-contract checking → code-quality-gate. Security review of contracts → solidity-audit.
The absolute constraint
Refactor implementation, not behaviour. Every recommendation preserves externally observable behaviour. Where cleanliness and behavioural safety conflict, safety wins. Equivalence is proven, not asserted: characterization tests must pass against the code as it stands today, then pass unchanged after the refactor.
Any uncertainty downgrades a finding to "Potential improvement — requires behavioural verification".
Rules that matter
- Declare scope and the audited commit or tag. Findings without a ref are unactionable.
- Work all 15 taxonomy categories; record "no material findings" rather than omitting one.
- Validate before reporting — call sites, consumers, tests, framework registration.
- Materiality test: unconventional but clear, safe, locally appropriate code is not a finding.
- Suspected functional bugs are reported, never fixed inside the audit.
- The audit proposes a
FEATURES.jsonseed; a human accepts findings into the ledger.
Forms
templates/CODE_AUDIT_CONTRACT.md · templates/CODE_AUDIT_FINDING.md
What ships with it
2 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.
- yesterday First seen · 47 lines · 81 tokens per session scan A 345eaeae340b
code-audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository David405/harness-kit (2 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 81 tokens to every session and 436 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
next-cache-components-adoption
Turn on Cache Components in a Next.js app and resolve the blocking routes it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable, adopt, or migrate to Cache Components, flip the cacheComponents flag, work through a flood of blocking-prerender / instant validation errors, run the cache-components-instant-false codemod, or…
babysit-pr
Babysit a GitHub pull request after creation by continuously polling review comments, CI checks/workflow runs, and mergeability state until the PR is merged/closed or user help is required. Diagnose failures, retry likely flaky failures up to 3 times, auto-fix/push branch-related issues when appropriate, and keep…
imagegen
Generate or edit raster images when the task benefits from AI-created bitmap visuals such as photos, illustrations, textures, sprites, mockups, or transparent-background cutouts. Use when Codex should create a brand-new image, transform an existing image, or derive visual variants from references, and the output…
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…
next-cache-components-optimizer
Drive a Next.js route to instant navigation by setting up an agentic loop, under Cache Components / PPR, on initial load (hard navigation) and client-side navigation (soft navigation). Encode the goal as a failing @next/playwright instant() e2e and work it to green, one verified route at a time; the shipped test then…