Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add InstituteforDiseaseModeling/idm_standards/plugin install idm-standardsWrote 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/institutefordiseasemodeling/idm_standards/audit-project)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/institutefordiseasemodeling/idm_standards/audit-project"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/institutefordiseasemodeling/idm_standards/audit-project/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/institutefordiseasemodeling/idm_standards/audit-project"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/institutefordiseasemodeling/idm_standards/audit-project.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 | $0.00095 | $0.01440 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00038 | $0.00576 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00288 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00144 |
Grade A, and why
audit-project scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 84 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Run the IDM code and/or documentation audits on a project, asking the user's preferences once, and write a combined project_audit.md summary.
Skill version: 2.0_2026.06.10
Step 1: Parse arguments and resolve the project
The user provides up to three arguments: project (local path or GitHub URL; default current directory), tier (1–3), and strictness (1–2). Tier definitions and strictness semantics are the same as in audit-code.
If a GitHub URL is given: clone it once with gh repo clone <url> /tmp/audit-project-$(date +%s) and use that local path for every sub-audit (the docs audit has no URL support of its own).
Discover the user config once, following $CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT/reference/user-config.md (read it now), against the resolved local path. Hold its directives (and any frontmatter tier/strictness) to pass into every sub-audit in Step 3, so they aren't re-discovered three times. If the project came from a GitHub URL or a path the user didn't author, surface the directives for confirmation in Step 2 before applying.
Step 2: Ask the user once
Use a single AskUserQuestion call covering (omit any already supplied as arguments or by invocation instructions):
- Which audits to run? (multiSelect)
- "Code audit (Recommended)" — engineering quality scoring (
audit-code, oraudit-r-codefor R projects) - "Docs audit (Recommended)" — documentation completeness, structure, audience fit (
audit-docs) - "Exhaustive code review" — per-file review of the whole codebase (
audit-code-exhaustive); note: much slower The default is code + docs ("both").
- "Code audit (Recommended)" — engineering quality scoring (
- Tier: the three tier options, with an inferred tier as the recommended option (infer as in
audit-codeStep 2). Tier 1 is the strictest (large reusable library / DPG); Tier 3 is the loosest (one-off / exploratory). Keep each tier number glued to its definition: when the recommended option is moved to the top, its number moves with it — never relabel a definition with a different tier number. A published/packaged library is Tier 1, not Tier 3. - Strictness: 1 (strict — everything) or 2 (material only).
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 84 lines · 95 tokens per session scan A 8995f2a6dac3
audit-project is a skill published in the GitHub repository InstituteforDiseaseModeling/idm_standards (2 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 95 tokens to every session and 1,440 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…