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 lacerbi/dotclaude --skill auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lacerbi/dotclaudeWrote 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/lacerbi/dotclaude/audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lacerbi/dotclaude/audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lacerbi/dotclaude/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/lacerbi/dotclaude/audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lacerbi/dotclaude/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 | $0.00012 | $0.00424 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00170 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00085 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00042 |
Grade A, and why
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 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.
What it actually says
Files to Audit
$ARGUMENTS
Context
- Project structure: !
ls -la - Recent modifications: !
git status --short 2>/dev/null || echo "Not a git repository"
Your Task
Treat the audit as read-only. Do not fix findings, edit files, create issues, or write an audit artifact unless the user explicitly asks for one.
Deploy specialized sub-agents as needed to audit the specified files across these key areas. Sub-agents are Opus (see Agent Selection in the global CLAUDE.md).
1. Correctness & Quality
- Bugs, errors, or logical flaws
- Completeness and accuracy
- Whether the file effectively serves its intended purpose
2. Codebase Integration
- Inconsistencies with related files (same directory, imports, dependencies)
- Conflicting patterns or duplicated functionality
- Missing companion files (tests, docs, configs)
- Broken references or dependencies
3. Standards & Best Practices
- Security vulnerabilities or unsafe patterns
- Performance issues or inefficiencies
- Maintainability concerns (complexity, documentation, naming)
- Compliance with project/industry standards
4. Impact & Risk
- What depends on these files
- Potential breaking changes
- Areas needing immediate attention
Output: Report the audit in the conversation by default. Include:
- Executive summary
- Detailed findings by area
- Prioritized action items
- Recommendations
If the user explicitly requests a file, write it at the repository's prescribed location or use
AUDIT_[descriptor]_[timestamp].md when no convention exists, then also provide a brief summary in
the conversation highlighting critical findings.
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 Changed c31e1f78c231
- 1mo ago First seen · 53 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A f69d1fd2a2b6
audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository lacerbi/dotclaude (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 424 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
prove-me-wrong
Use when a leading diagnosis or nontrivial fix has initial support and needs one adversarial counterexample before acceptance.
reviewing-code
Reviews code changes for bugs, performance issues, security problems, and best practice violations. Use when reviewing PRs, before committing, after making code changes, or when user asks to review, check, or look over code. Catches N+1 queries, missing error handling, React hooks issues, test coverage gaps, and…
addressing-pr-feedback
Fetches, organizes, and addresses PR review comments from GitHub. Use when user asks to review PR comments, fix PR feedback, check what reviewers said, address review comments, or handle bot suggestions on a pull request. Triggers on "review PR", "fix comments", "PR feedback", "what did reviewers say", "address PR…
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.
react-patterns
React 19 performance patterns and composition architecture for Vite + Cloudflare projects. 50+ rules ranked by impact — eliminating waterfalls, bundle optimisation, re-render prevention, composition over boolean props, server/client boundaries, and React 19 APIs. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring React…
pr-description-writer
Redacta una descripción de pull request clara y estructurada a partir de un diff de git, resumen de rama o lista de commits. Úsalo cuando te pidan escribir una descripción de PR, redactar una solicitud de cambios o documentar cambios de código. Produce una descripción con resumen, motivación, cambios realizados, pasos…