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/greglas75/zuvonpx agentmods add skills/greglas75/zuvo/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/greglas75/zuvo/code-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/greglas75/zuvo/code-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/greglas75/zuvo/code-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/greglas75/zuvo/code-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/greglas75/zuvo/code-audit.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 4 findings, up to high
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 →
- high Prompt Injection · line 398 Hidden instructions were detected in comments or invisible text. These could contain malicious directives. Manual review is recommended.Fix: Audit all comments and invisible characters. Remove any instructions that direct the agent to perform unauthorized actions. Use plain, reviewable content.
- high Prompt Injection · line 442 Hidden instructions were detected in comments or invisible text. These could contain malicious directives. Manual review is recommended.Fix: Audit all comments and invisible characters. Remove any instructions that direct the agent to perform unauthorized actions. Use plain, reviewable content.
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 343 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium Rogue Agent · line 633 Skill establishes unauthorized persistence across sessions via cron jobs, startup scripts, or state files. Session persistence allows an attacker to maintain access beyond the current interaction.Fix: Remove any persistence mechanisms (cron jobs, startup scripts, state files). Skills should not maintain state across sessions without explicit user consent.
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 | $0.00083 | $0.12005 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00033 | $0.04802 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.02401 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.01201 |
Grade A, and why
code-audit scanned grade A with 1 finding 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 7d 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.
Runs shell commandslowCapability
Expected in a hook, worth knowing in a rule or an instructions file.
CAP26: `subprocess`/`os.system` with `shell=True` or a non-literal command string (CWE-78) -- AUTO TIER-D [stack: python] How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 787 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
zuvo:code-audit — Production Code Quality Triage
Systematic evaluation of production source files through the CQ1-CQ40 binary checklist and CAP anti-pattern catalog. Every file receives a tier classification based on its score, critical gate status, and detected anti-patterns. The output is a prioritized report with actionable fix plans.
When to use: Periodic health checks, before major releases, after adding many production files, when onboarding a new codebase, when code quality feels inconsistent.
Out of scope: Single-file code review (use zuvo:review), refactoring (use zuvo:refactor), test quality assessment (use zuvo:test-audit), feature development (use zuvo:build).
Argument Parsing
| Argument | Effect |
|---|---|
all |
Audit every production file in the project |
[path] |
Audit production files under a specific directory |
[file] |
Audit a single file with full evidence (forces deep mode) |
--deep |
Collect per-gate evidence and fix recommendations for every file |
--quick |
Binary pass/fail only, skip evidence gathering |
--services (filter Phase 0.1 discovery to files classified SERVICE in 0.3; without that filter this flag is a no-op) |
Restrict scope to service and business logic files |
--controllers (same: filter Phase 0.1 to CONTROLLER-classified files) |
Restrict scope to controller, handler, and route files |
Default behavior: all --quick
| Mode | Scope | Depth | Batch Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
all |
Entire project | Standard | 6 files/batch | Default |
[path] |
Directory tree | Standard | 6 files/batch | Scoped |
[file] |
One file | Deep (full evidence) | 1 | Single-file deep dive |
--deep |
Any scope | Full evidence | 6 files/batch | Slower, thorough |
--quick |
Any scope | Binary only | 10 files/batch | Fast triage |
--services |
Service files | Standard | 6 | Filter by file type |
--controllers |
Controller files | Standard | 6 | Filter by file type |
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.
- 7d ago Changed · +2 lines b6c43f9e4f10
- 1mo ago Changed · -2 lines a0e83436137f
- 1mo ago First seen · 787 lines · 83 tokens per session scan A 9ce1a89f20fa
code-audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository greglas75/zuvo (8 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 83 tokens to every session and 12,005 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (runs shell commands). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
ai-agent-bench
Compare Claude Code and Codex on the same code task, with isolated worktrees, common checks, time, and cost.
create-test
Define or implement regression proof: test strategy, black-box or integration tests, KPIs, thresholds, audits, or missing tests.
wrap-up-branch
Finish a feature branch: add missing tests, review and fix the code, align docs, then merge only after explicit confirmation.
eval-regression
Check skill routing or behavior, investigate a regression, or compare plugin changes with a base commit.
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
brooks-test
Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow…