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 forefy/.context --skill audit-scopegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/forefy/.contextWrote 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/forefy/.context/audit-scope)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/forefy/.context/audit-scope"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/forefy/.context/audit-scope/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/forefy/.context/audit-scope"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/forefy/.context/audit-scope.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 17 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 47 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00035 | $0.02187 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00875 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00437 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00219 |
Grade A, and why
audit-scope 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 — 155 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Audit Scope Skill
Inputs
User provides one or more of:
- GitHub repo URL(s)
- API documentation / access description (no repo)
- Named scope components (e.g. "also include the webhook service")
No report-days input needed - report writing is hardcoded (see Constants).
Constants (hardcoded, never ask user)
- Report writing: always 1 day
Scope is measured in days. Do not attach monetary amounts to the output - days are the unit of measurement here.
Step-by-step execution
1. Ingest repos
For each GitHub repo URL provided:
- Clone to
/tmp/<repo-name>-auditviagh repo clone - Run
cloc <repo> --quiet --not-match-f="(?i)(spec|test)" --not-match-d="(test|spec|__tests__|__mocks__)" --include-lang=TypeScript,JavaScript,Kotlin,Java,Go,Python,Rust,Solidity,HCL(exclude test/spec files and dirs, case-insensitive; adjust--include-langfor the repo's stack) - Record NSLOC per repo (source lines only - exclude test/spec files, Markdown, YAML, Gradle, shell)
- Never estimate NSLOC manually - always run cloc
For API-only scope (no repo):
- NSLOC = N/A
- Estimate days from endpoint count and complexity description
2. Explore repo structure
Read enough to understand:
- What the component does (SDK? API server? webhook handler?)
- Core tech: cryptographic primitives, auth mechanisms, external dependencies
- Language-specific security surface (JVM, Node, etc.)
- Key files: entry point, signing/crypto logic, error handling, config/env
3. Identify discounts
Apply these automatically - do not ask user:
| Condition | Discount |
|---|---|
| Multiple repos audited back-to-back (streak) | -0.5d lift-off discount |
| Multiple repos share same domain/features (similarity) | -20-35% off affected component's days |
| Spec/rules doc in scope alongside backend that implements it | -1-2d off backend (domain fluency pre-built) |
Lift-off discount = negative row in table (streak saves ramp time). Similarity discount = bidirectional - applies whenever two components share significant overlapping attack surface, regardless of order. E.g. SDKs and backend sharing the same signing/API domain discount each other: SDKs get discounted because backend covers the server-side of the same flow; backend gets discounted because SDK work already mapped the signing trust boundary. Bake into the component day estimate directly (no separate row).
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 · 155 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 1ebb8156f3e2
audit-scope is a skill published in the GitHub repository forefy/.context (153 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 2,187 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
eresus-manual-security-audit
Elite manual security code review skill for deep, adversarial vulnerability hunting and exploit-chain discovery. Trigger when the user asks to: "do a deep security audit", "manual code review", "find exploit chains", "hunt for logic bugs", "red-team this codebase", "do an offensive security review", "review this like…
eresus-sast-scanner
General-purpose Static Application Security Testing (SAST) skill for code vulnerability analysis. Trigger when the user asks to: "analyze code for vulnerabilities", "review code security", "find security bugs", "do a SAST scan", "check for [vulnerability type] in code", "audit source code", or requests a security code…
eresus-php-audit
Deep PHP-specific security audit skill covering injection, deserialization, file operations, auth bypass, POP chain discovery, and CMS-specific patterns. Trigger when auditing PHP code: "audit this PHP app", "find PHP security issues", "check Laravel/WordPress for vulnerabilities", "PHP SAST review", "check for PHP…
eresus-python-audit
Deep Python-specific security audit skill with 50+ vulnerability class coverage across 7 categories. Trigger when auditing Python code: "audit this Python app", "find Python security issues", "check Flask/Django for vulnerabilities", "Python SAST review", "check for pickle vulnerabilities", "review this FastAPI code".…
eresus-pr-security-review
Security-focused pull request and diff review skill for finding newly introduced vulnerabilities, risky regressions, and missing security tests in changed code. Trigger when the user asks to: "review this PR for security", "check this diff for vulns", "do a security code review", "audit changed files", or wants…
eresus-remediator
Security remediation skill for fixing confirmed or likely SAST findings in source code. Trigger when the user asks to: "fix a vulnerability", "patch this security bug", "remediate SAST findings", "harden this endpoint", "make this auth flow safe", or wants code changes that remove a confirmed security issue while…