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 firatcand/forge --skill auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/firatcand/forgeWrote 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/firatcand/forge/audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/firatcand/forge/audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/firatcand/forge/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/firatcand/forge/audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/firatcand/forge/audit.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 | $0.00062 | $0.01613 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00645 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00323 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00161 |
Grade A, and why
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 — 142 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/audit
READ-ONLY. This skill produces a work-order of audit findings — it NEVER edits, creates, or deletes source. The only file it writes is the work-order under
.forge/audits/<ts>/. No self-loop.
The user-facing audit driver. One invocation = one audit pass:
audit plan(read-only) → parse the per-(scope × dimension) prompts.- Fan out one read-only Task subagent per prompt; each returns findings JSON.
- Assemble all findings →
audit collect→ filtered, validated work-order. - Present the work-order (counts + path) and the read-only guarantee.
- Offer the next step (NOT built here): turning approved findings into issues.
Preconditions
- A git repo (scope auto-discovery ranks tracked dirs; a non-git repo falls back
to scope
["**"]with a warning). .forge/settings.yamlis OPTIONAL — when absent, audit uses defaults and warns (verify unconfigured). The protected set comes from the adopter-curatedCRITICAL.md+settings.audit.protected_globsONLY; scope comes fromsettings.audit.scope_globsor git-tree auto-discovery. You never hardcode paths, and the JS-flavoredagents.preflight_globsdefault is NOT folded in (it would leak forge-shaped paths into a non-forge repo's audit).
Step 1 — Plan the audit (read-only, writes nothing)
forge orchestrate audit plan --json
Parse data:
prompts[]— each{ scope, dimension, prompt }. Thepromptis a complete, self-contained read-only audit instruction (it already embeds the scope glob, the dimension focus, the protected globs to avoid, the finding schema, the 6-way classification rubric, the per-agent cap, and the read-only mandate).scope,dimensions,protected_globs— the resolved sets.verify_configured— whenfalse, surface the warning: findings are UNVERIFIABLE without averify:gate; the audit must be paired with one.warnings[]— scope-fallback / settings-absent notices to relay.
Optional overrides: --scope a/**,b/** and --dimensions dead-code,duplication.
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 · 142 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A 7f78132492f9
audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository firatcand/forge (13 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 1,613 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
ast-grep
Code search, analysis, and refactoring using ast-grep (sg). Use for AST-based code modifications, structural search, and linting.
cleanup-codebase
Reduce concepts, duplication, and ceremony in internal code while touching nearby code. Use when working an existing path and you spot dead fields, redundant wrappers, or speculative abstractions; distinct from refactor-break-bw-compat (internal hygiene, not public API removal).
pr-reviews
Review code changes on a given GitHub PR using gh CLI. Use when the user asks to review a pull request, analyze PR diffs, or provide feedback on open PRs with structured quality, security, and testing assessments.
resolve
Resolve code review comments by verifying validity, then proposing multiple architectural solutions (not naive fixes) for confirmed issues. Use when addressing review feedback or analyzing comment validity.
reviews
Review the code changes on the current branch. Use when the user asks to review their current work, analyze recent commits, or get a code quality assessment of the active branch against the main branch.
code-taste
Code taste and software design judgment: solution/design review, module & interface boundary shaping, refactoring tradeoffs, naming, maintainability, and documentation layering. First-principles: clarify the original requirement before discussing solutions. Skip for debugging, triage, call-path inspection, or routine…