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 nelsonwerd/idea-to-ship-skills --skill audit-and-fixgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nelsonwerd/idea-to-ship-skillsWrote 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/nelsonwerd/idea-to-ship-skills/audit-and-fix)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nelsonwerd/idea-to-ship-skills/audit-and-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nelsonwerd/idea-to-ship-skills/audit-and-fix/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/nelsonwerd/idea-to-ship-skills/audit-and-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nelsonwerd/idea-to-ship-skills/audit-and-fix.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 29 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 41 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00234 | $0.04696 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00117 | $0.02348 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00047 | $0.00939 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00470 |
Grade A, and why
audit-and-fix 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 12d 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 — 131 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Audit-and-Fix — autonomous audit→fix orchestrator
audit-and-fix points at an existing repo, runs a rigorous read-only audit, makes a value judgment about what's worth fixing, takes one human go, then autonomously sequences and implements the triaged fixes — receipted, unit by unit, one commit per verified boundary — and stops at local commits.
It is an orchestrator: it composes the existing skills and never reimplements them. It invokes deep-dive, prompt-pack, and build-loop, carries each one's file output into the next, and adds only the connective tissue — the triage verdict, the single gate, the regression fence, the receipt discipline, the resume contract, and the honest ledger. If a phase tempts you to paste a sub-skill's procedure into this run, stop: invoke the skill instead.
It is autopilot pointed backwards. autopilot builds something that doesn't exist and risks inventing demand; audit-and-fix repairs something that does and risks breaking working software. Dropping ideate isn't a shortcut — the codebase replaces it as the source of truth. There is nothing to invent, so there's no grounding firewall to hold; the analogous rule here is a green test is not a fixed bug, and a non-reproduction is not a fix.
When to use this
Strong triggers — invoke without asking:
- "Audit this repo and fix what you find" / "deep dive then fix the bugs" / "audit and edit"
- "Implement the audit's recommendations"
- "Autopilot this repo, but skip the ideation"
- "Plan and execute these fixes" — said after a
deep-divebriefing already landed. That's this skill, entering at Phase 3 (and see the gate table: the findings were read, so no gate — within the bound).
Do NOT use this for:
- Auditing with no intent to change — that's
deep-dive, and it's cheaper. - A change you already know you want — that's
prompt-pack(+build-loop). Nothing to discover. - A new idea / greenfield — that's
autopilot. There's no codebase to be the grounding. - Feature work. It fixes what the audit found. It does not add features. (This is the fence, not modesty.)
- A non-git repo.
git initfirst — this isn't a receipt technicality: the baseline SHA, the fence proof, the commit-per-unit cadence, andresumeare all defined in terms of git. Without it there is no run, not a degraded one. - A repo with no verification surface (docs/prose) — nothing to receipt, so nothing to prove.
What ships with it
3 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.
- 12d ago First seen · 131 lines · 234 tokens per session scan A da5d18c20ae1
audit-and-fix is a skill published in the GitHub repository nelsonwerd/idea-to-ship-skills (83 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 234 tokens to every session and 4,696 once invoked, about $0.0012 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
code
Use BEFORE generating, refactoring, reviewing, or debugging code. Trigger phrases include "write a function/script/class for X", "review this code/diff/PR", "refactor this", "debug this error", "is this implementation correct", "what's wrong with this code", "improve this code", "translate from X to Y", or any prompt…
refactoring-patterns
Code refactoring patterns with before/after diffs for extract method, extract class, inline, move, rename, dead code removal, dependency injection, and code smell detection.
gs-review
Pre-landing PR review - gstack staff-engineer code review army. CARL TRIGGERS: review the code, audit this branch, check this PR, find bugs, code review, review my changes. SOURCE: garrytan/gstack/review, integrated as gs-review on 2026-05-29.
complexity
Analyze cyclomatic complexity and suggest simplifications.
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…
thinking-scientific-method
When a symptom has several plausible causes, rank falsifiable hypotheses and run the cheapest discriminating observation first; prefer least-assumptive survivors only after evidence fit.