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 Destynova2/cli-code-skills --skill cli-audit-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Destynova2/cli-code-skillsWrote 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/destynova2/cli-code-skills/cli-audit-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/destynova2/cli-code-skills/cli-audit-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/destynova2/cli-code-skills/cli-audit-review/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/destynova2/cli-code-skills/cli-audit-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/destynova2/cli-code-skills/cli-audit-review.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 | $0.00138 | $0.03239 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00055 | $0.01296 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00648 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00324 |
Grade A, and why
cli-audit-review 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 — 238 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Optimization: This skill uses on-demand loading. Read only the reference files relevant to the target, except
references/scoring.md, which is mandatory for every scored review.
Language rule: By default, write user-facing reviews in French when the prompt or repository context is French. Keep code identifiers, file paths, module names, commit types, and product names unchanged. Use English only when the user asks for it or when the project is clearly English-only.
Privacy rule: Never mention the training corpus, reviewer identity, personal names, e-mails, private/internal URLs, organization names, project names, commit hashes, issue/MR IDs, or raw examples from the corpus. The skill must behave as a neutral review methodology.
Audit Review — Review Methodology Index (RMI)
Use this skill when the user asks for a MR/PR/diff review, scored reviewer gate, strict infrastructure or automation review, Ansible review, CI/release review, idempotence audit, Molecule proof review, or convention compliance review.
Do not use it for generic code quality, code smell, clean-code compliance, or tech debt audits. Use cli-audit-code for that. For a shell-only quality audit, use cli-audit-shell. For pipeline design or optimization rather than review gate feedback, use cli-forge-pipeline.
The goal is not to produce generic lint feedback. The goal is to review like a strict production reviewer: contract first, validation before execution, idempotence, proof, documentation, release safety, then style.
Core Principles
- Intent first — understand the MR/PR description, linked issue, changed behavior, and review scope before reading line-level diffs.
- Evidence first — every actionable finding needs
file:line, orrepo-wide/diff-widewhen no single line owns the issue. - Contract chain — public behavior must propagate through:
contract -> validation -> implementation -> proof -> docs/CI/release. - Desired state over actions — for infrastructure and Ansible, prefer modeling the final state rather than introducing imperative action flags.
- Fail fast — bad configuration must be rejected before packages, services, filesystems, clusters, remote APIs, or credentials are touched.
- Idempotence is mandatory — repeated execution must converge cleanly; commands/shell tasks need explicit state/change/failure controls.
- Secrets are toxic by default — tokens, passwords, keys, credentials, and sensitive command output must be contained in logs, templates, CI variables, artifacts, and errors.
- Proof is part of the change — deployable behavior needs Molecule, CI, integration tests, idempotence checks, or equivalent proof.
- CI/release is production code — pipelines, semantic-release, packaging metadata, branch rules, tokens, and artifacts are reviewed as runtime behavior.
- Recent conventions win — when conventions conflict, apply
references/conflict-resolution.mdand prefer the newest relevant pattern unless it is less safe. - Risk beats cosmetic style — do not spend review budget on whitespace while contract, proof, idempotence, or security is broken.
- Approve improvement, not perfection — block regressions and unproven risk; mark polish as non-blocking when code health is improving.
- Smallest useful correction — ask for the minimal change that closes the risk. Avoid rewrite requests unless the design is unsafe.
- Positive signal matters — include what is good: clear propagation, good assertions, maintained docs, useful tests, safe release handling.
What ships with it
10 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.
- README.md 1.3 KB
- references/comment-style.md 6.0 KB
- references/conflict-resolution.md 4.4 KB
- references/conventions-ansible.md 6.2 KB
- references/conventions-ci-release.md 4.7 KB
- references/conventions-language.md 5.5 KB
- references/output-template.md 4.1 KB
- references/privacy.md 2.1 KB
- references/reviewer-methodology.md 8.1 KB
- references/scoring.md 6.7 KB
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 · 238 lines · 138 tokens per session scan A bb850f3544e6
cli-audit-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Destynova2/cli-code-skills (5 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 138 tokens to every session and 3,239 once invoked, about $0.0006 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
argot-setup-ci
Wire argot into a repository's GitHub Actions as a non-blocking configured check on every pull request — a job summary plus code-scanning annotations. Use when the user wants argot "in CI", "on PRs", "as a GitHub Action", or asks to "set up argot CI". Distinct from argot-setup (local checking) and argot-review-pr…
tech-debt-ci-review
Codex adapter for deep technical-debt and CI-stability audits. Use when asked to find test theater, flaky tests, missing or mis-scoped tests, brittle CI/toolchain behavior, structural debt blocking green PRs, or a remediation order for opencode-swarm.
duo-build
Build an issue or feature interactively toward an indexed shared goal, with automatic read-only peer review; resume the same run across Claude Code and Codex.
argot-setup
Set argot up for a repository end to end — audit its history, decide what should shape its voice, fit, verify the fit actually catches things, tune the rules its own history says are noisy, and wire the places it runs (pre-write hook, pre-commit, MCP, CI). One sitting, one decision at a time, each proposed with the…
argot-check
Score your working changes with argot — flag code foreign to this repo's own patterns (unfamiliar dependencies, APIs, constructs), functions the repo already has, code filed in the wrong place, imports that break the repo's layering, and tests weakened, disabled, or deleted alongside a production change — before…
argot-write-rule
Codify a repo convention argot's built-ins don't cover into a scripted custom rule — a .argot/rules/NAME/rule.toml manifest plus a sandboxed Rhai script that fires exactly like a built-in, gated on a green fixture suite before it ever sees a real diff. Use when the user asks to "write an argot rule for X", "codify…