Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/EmpiricaAI/empiricanpx agentmods add skills/empiricaai/empirica/code-auditWrote 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/empiricaai/empirica/code-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/empiricaai/empirica/code-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/empiricaai/empirica/code-audit.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 | $0.00091 | $0.03234 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.01617 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00647 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00323 |
Grade A, and why
code-audit scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 8d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 375 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Audit: Noetic Investigation Skill
Investigate code quality. Produce structured remediation plans.
This skill is purely noetic — it discovers, triages, and plans. It does NOT make changes. The output (findings, goals, decisions) feeds directly into the Empirica workflow for any praxic agent to pick up and execute.
How to Run
/code-audit # Audit entire project
/code-audit --target src/handlers/ # Audit specific directory
/code-audit --target src/auth.py # Audit specific file
/code-audit --focus duplication # Focus on one dimension
Phase 1: Scope
Determine what to audit. If the user specified a target, use it. Otherwise, audit the current project root.
# Determine scope
TARGET="${1:-.}" # Default to current directory
# Quick size assessment
find "$TARGET" -name "*.py" | wc -l # File count
find "$TARGET" -name "*.py" -exec wc -l {} + | tail -1 # Total LOC
Log the audit scope:
empirica finding-log --finding "Audit scope: $TARGET — N files, N LOC" --impact 0.1
Phase 2: Automated Tool Passes
Run external tools and parse results into findings. Each tool covers a different dimension. Skip any tool that isn't installed — the audit still works without it.
2a. Linting & Style (ruff)
ruff check "$TARGET" --statistics --output-format json 2>/dev/null
Parse results:
- Group by rule category (import order, unused imports, complexity, etc.)
- Log aggregates as findings, not individual violations
- Impact scoring: unused imports = 0.2, complexity violations = 0.5, security = 0.8
# Example: aggregate finding
empirica finding-log --finding "ruff: 23 unused imports across 8 files (F401)" --impact 0.2
empirica finding-log --finding "ruff: 5 functions exceed complexity limit (C901)" --impact 0.5
2b. Dead Code (vulture)
vulture "$TARGET" --min-confidence 80
Parse results:
- Filter out false positives (dynamically called functions, CLI entry points)
- Log confirmed dead code as findings
- Log uncertain cases as unknowns
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 · 375 lines · 91 tokens per session scan A bca9a1857971
code-audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository EmpiricaAI/empirica (247 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 91 tokens to every session and 3,234 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
design-is
Audit a design against Dieter Rams' ten "Good design is..." principles, then hand off a /make-plan prompt for one of three outcomes — new design, refine design, or redesign. Use when the user says "audit this design", "design review", "check this UI against Rams", "is this UI good", "critique this design", "design…
babysit
Watch a pull request or review cycle until it is ready to merge. Use when asked to babysit, monitor, or keep checking PR comments, reviews, and CI until all actionable issues are resolved.
agy-delegate
Delegate coding tasks to the Google Antigravity CLI (agy) only when the user explicitly requests it, while the orchestrator retains review and landing responsibility.
luna
Reviews code for objective correctness, security, and reliability.
max
Cleans up and improves existing code without changing behavior.
andrej-karpathy
Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring code to avoid overcomplication, make surgical changes, surface assumptions, and define verifiable success criteria.