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 johanthoren/jeff --skill security-auditorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/johanthoren/jeffWrote 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/johanthoren/jeff/security-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/johanthoren/jeff/security-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/johanthoren/jeff/security-auditor/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/johanthoren/jeff/security-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/johanthoren/jeff/security-auditor.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 | $0.00074 | $0.00976 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00390 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00195 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00098 |
Grade A, and why
security-auditor 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 — 94 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Security Auditor
Adversarial security-audit skill for the jeff pipeline.
Use this skill when you need an adversarial review that tries to break assumptions and surface exploitable weaknesses.
Load Order
For code work, load these first:
code-standards- language-specific skills, if present
testing(when modifying checks)
Then load security-auditor.
Adversarial Posture (Anti-Shirk Contract)
- Assume vulnerabilities exist until disproven by evidence.
- Treat missing evidence as a risk signal, not a clean bill of health.
- Never return
PASSwithout full coverage ledger output. - Do not stop at regex hits: confirm exploit path context when possible.
- Keep findings actionable with CWE mapping, exploit risk, and concrete remediation.
- The implementer must never be the auditor. Whoever wrote or changed the code under review cannot sign off on its security; delegate the audit to an independent agent and never self-assess inline.
Deterministic Entry Point
The audit runner is scripts/review-security.sh, bundled in this skill's own directory. When this skill loads, its absolute location is given to you as the skill's base directory (the Base directory for this skill: … line in the skill preamble). Run the script by that absolute path, keeping your working directory in the target repo so the scan resolves the code under review from the cwd:
"<base-directory>/scripts/review-security.sh" [scope] [flags]
Do not filesystem-search for the script; resolve it from the announced base directory.
Default Checks
- Hardcoded secrets and key material
- Injection sinks (SQL, shell/command, path traversal)
- Insecure deserialization
- Weak crypto/hash usage
- Dangerous dynamic execution (
eval,exec, deserialization gadgets) - TLS verification disabled / insecure transport
- XSS-prone patterns
- Sensitive data logging
- Dependency audit attempts (when manifest + tool exist)
Expected Output
security_audit_result:
scope: "<resolved-scope>"
files_scanned: <n>
dropped_targets: [<explicitly supplied dropped target>, ...]
findings:
total: <n>
critical: <n>
high: <n>
medium: <n>
low: <n>
coverage:
categories: <n>
uncovered: <n>
audit_tool_failures: <n>
recommendation: "PASS|REVIEW|BLOCK|EMPTY-SCAN"
report_path: "scratchpads/security-audit-<timestamp>.md"
What ships with it
4 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 94 lines · 74 tokens per session scan A 173108b39517
security-auditor is a skill published in the GitHub repository johanthoren/jeff (6 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 74 tokens to every session and 976 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
lsp-investigate
Investigate code using LSP tools. Register a project, then use definitions, references, call hierarchies, type hierarchies, hover, and diagnostics to understand code structure, trace bugs, and assess change impact.
gemini
Cross-model second opinion from Google Gemini — a different AI reviewing the same changes, with deep Google ecosystem knowledge. Three modes: review (pass/fail gate for Google Ads campaigns, SEO metadata, or code), challenge (adversarial stress-test that tries to break your changes), and consult (open Q&A with Gemini…
critical-code-reviewer
Rigorously review code or pull requests for correctness, security, accessibility, maintainability, tests, and edge cases. Use when users request a critical code review, want a guided walkthrough of findings, need implementer-facing feedback, or want to prepare, create, or submit a GitHub pull request review.
pr-threads-address
Address PR review feedback by systematically working through every unresolved PR review thread on the current branch's PR - analyze each comment, make the requested code changes (with tests where useful), commit, and optionally reply and resolve.
boundaries
Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls, validating dependencies, before splitting modules, or reviewing architecture.
triage
Triage review findings interactively — approve, skip, or prioritize each issue. Use after /phx:review to filter findings before fixing.