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 ky2renzzz/acp-forge --skill security-auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ky2renzzz/acp-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/ky2renzzz/acp-forge/security-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ky2renzzz/acp-forge/security-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ky2renzzz/acp-forge/security-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/ky2renzzz/acp-forge/security-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ky2renzzz/acp-forge/security-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 | $0.00027 | $0.00254 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00102 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00051 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00025 |
Grade A, and why
security-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 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.
What it actually says
Security Audit
Perform a thorough security review of the target code.
Scope
- Injection: SQL injection, command injection, path traversal
- Authentication: Auth bypass, weak token generation, missing rate limits
- Secrets: Hardcoded API keys, passwords, tokens in source
- Dependencies: Known CVEs in imported packages
- Data exposure: PII leakage in logs, error messages, or responses
Process
- Read all files in the target scope
- For each file, check against the vulnerability categories above
- Classify findings as Critical / High / Medium / Low
- Provide specific line references and remediation steps
- Summarize with a risk score (1-10)
Output Format
For each finding:
- File: path/to/file.rs
- Line: 42
- Severity: High
- Category: Injection
- Description: User input passed directly to SQL query
- Fix: Use parameterized queries
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 · 34 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 8acc449eb6f4
security-audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository ky2renzzz/acp-forge (5 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 254 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
crossreview
Run when the user invokes /crossreview (or /crossreview:setup to choose the reviewers) or asks for a cross-review, a quorum review or a second opinion from other agents or models: fan a code review (uncommitted work, a branch, a commit range, files, a plan or a document) out to several console code agents (Claude…
review-duo
Review a defined code change with two Thread members independently checking standards, quality and requirements. Applies to the initiator and invited reviewer through the final report; excludes solo review, undefined scope and implementation-only requests.
fabric-spec
Starts a persistent Pi Fabric spec supervisor that audits the main session against a feature design spec and steers only when a requirement lacks verified evidence. Use for strict, unblocked spec compliance while the main agent keeps full freedom to orchestrate.
fabric-advisor
Starts a persistent Pi Fabric peer advisor that reviews the main agent at decision points and surfaces only concrete, material advice. Use for ambient correctness review without another extension.
review-team
A multi-reviewer code review process that checks a change from several specialist viewpoints and combines the results into one report. It can cover bugs, security, tests, dependencies, frontend behavior, and continuous-integration workflows.
Read-only review
Review the selected implementation and report correctness, security, and maintainability findings. Do not modify workspace files.