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 agentmods add skills/nazmulnahid-git/ai-stack/prodchecknpx skills add nazmulnahid-git/Ai-Stack --skill prodcheckgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nazmulnahid-git/Ai-StackWhat 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 | $0.00088 | $0.02122 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00044 | $0.01061 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00424 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00212 |
Grade A, and why
prodcheck 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 2d 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 — 183 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
prodcheck
A staff-level review of code that is about to hit production. The value of this skill is not the checklist — it is the refusal to report anything you have not proven.
Non-negotiables
- Fact first, opinion never. Every finding cites
file:lineand quotes the real code. If a claim depends on how a framework/ORM/middleware behaves, open the config, the migration, the base class, ornode_modules/site-packages and confirm it. "Prisma probably lazy-loads this" is not a finding. - No finding without a trigger. You must be able to write a concrete failure scenario: these inputs / this state → this wrong outcome. If you cannot, delete the finding. Silence beats noise.
- Do not write code in this skill unless the user says to. Review is the deliverable. Fixing is a separate, explicitly authorized step (Step 6).
- No style commentary. Naming, formatting, and taste are out of scope unless they cause a real defect. Linters exist.
- Report what you did not cover. If you skipped generated files, vendored code, or a subsystem you could not read, say so.
Step 1 — Scope the review
Determine exactly what is under review, in this order:
- An explicit argument (path, PR number, commit range) wins.
- Otherwise:
git status --porcelain+git difffor uncommitted work, andgit diff $(git merge-base HEAD origin/main)...HEADfor the branch. - If both are empty, ask the user what to review. Do not review the whole repo uninvited.
State the scope in one line before you start (Reviewing 14 files, +812/-90, branch feat/billing vs origin/main).
Step 2 — Build ground truth before judging
Read enough of the surrounding system that you are reviewing behavior, not diffs. At minimum, for the code in scope:
- The schema: migrations /
schema.prisma/ models — real columns, real indexes, real constraints, real nullability. - The auth path: middleware, guards, decorators, route registration. Know what runs before the handler and what it actually enforces.
- The callers: who invokes the changed functions, with what values, from where (HTTP, cron, queue, webhook, admin script).
- The existing conventions: how the rest of this codebase already does authz, scoping, transactions, and error handling. A change that breaks the house pattern is a finding; a change that follows a pattern you personally dislike is not.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 183 lines · 88 tokens per session scan A dc110c4f62e8
prodcheck is a skill published in the GitHub repository nazmulnahid-git/Ai-Stack (2 stars, last pushed 25d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 88 tokens to every session and 2,122 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 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
opencli-sitemap-author
Use when creating or maintaining OpenCLI site sitemaps: agent-facing navigation, page-state, action, workflow, API-reference, pitfall, and fallback knowledge for a website. Use after browser exploration discovers durable site context, when a sitemap is stale, or when promoting local site knowledge into the repo.
golden-rss
Use when testing the rss golden build.
omh-buzz
This is a Hermes-native buzz workflow skill.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
redteam-api-detail-pack
Domain routing and boundary guidance for authorized API security testing, including BOLA/IDOR, authentication bypass, mass assignment, missing rate limits, and GraphQL issues. Use when a task belongs to the API testing domain and needs scope, evidence, pivot, or exit criteria.
redteam-postex-detail-pack
Domain routing and boundary guidance for authorized post-exploitation testing after initial access, including privilege escalation, persistence, lateral movement, data collection, and cleanup considerations. Use when a task belongs to the post-exploitation domain and needs scope, evidence, pivot, or exit criteria.