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 neverinfamous/memory-journal-mcp --skill adversarial-workflow-auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/neverinfamous/memory-journal-mcpWrote 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/neverinfamous/memory-journal-mcp/adversarial-workflow-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/neverinfamous/memory-journal-mcp/adversarial-workflow-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/neverinfamous/memory-journal-mcp/adversarial-workflow-audit.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00097 | $0.00822 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00048 | $0.00411 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00164 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00082 |
Grade A, and why
adversarial-workflow-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 8d 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 — 83 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Adversarial Workflow Audit
A multi-pass quality auditing system adapted specifically for manual markdown workflows. Unlike agent skills (which trigger automatically), workflows are manually invoked by users and execute sequentially. This audit ensures they are deterministic, safe, and robust.
When to Load
Load this skill when any of these apply:
- Auditing an entire workflows directory for quality and safety.
- Reviewing a new workflow before finalizing it.
- The user asks for a workflow quality check or playbook review.
- The user says "audit this workflow", "review this runbook", "check my playbook", or "review this slash command".
Adversarial Protocol
This skill follows the standard dual-agent adversarial pattern (Agent A: The Evaluator, Agent B: The Adversarial Tester). For the core pipeline rules, phase definitions, and agent switching protocols, read: ../adversarial-security/references/adversarial-base-protocol.md
Deep References
For the specific audit categories and rubric, read:
External Validation (Phase 4)
Phase 4 triggers an independent validation pass using the GitHub CLI (gh copilot).
The copilot subcommand is built into modern gh CLI — no separate extension is
needed. This provides a fundamentally different model's perspective on workflow
quality, catching ambiguous steps and missing safety gates that internal review
normalizes.
Prerequisites: gh CLI v2.x+ with gh auth status passing. If gh copilot
is not available, skip Phase 4 gracefully and note the skip in the journal entry.
Read references/copilot-usage.md for critical non-interactive execution requirements.
Feedback Loop
Every phase creates a journal entry for future retrieval. Ensure the entry_type and tags map to the protocol table above.
Journal Opt-Out
See ../adversarial-security/references/journal-opt-out.md for instructions on how to handle explicit opt-outs from journaling.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 83 lines · 97 tokens per session scan A 252f2ecaa1bc
adversarial-workflow-audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository neverinfamous/memory-journal-mcp (20 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 97 tokens to every session and 822 once invoked, about $0.0005 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-reviewer
6-aspect structured code review (security, architecture, error handling, test gaps, type safety, simplification) with calibrated scoring and per-aspect breakdown. Use when the user asks to review code, check a PR, review a pull request, audit changes before merge, or give code feedback.
refactor-expert
Guide safe, incremental refactoring that improves code quality without changing behavior.
code-simplifier
Detect and simplify overly complex code. Apply KISS principle - less is more.
session-review
End-of-session adversarial review loop. Assemble the session's work into a role-assigned, self-contained brief, then run independent reviewers in parallel — an isolated code-reader (the idea-validator agent) that reads the ACTUAL files and web-checks technology currency, plus an external-family model if you have one …
second-opinion
Cross-check the agent's own answer with independent reviewers before bringing it to the user. Use when the user says 'second opinion', 'sanity check', 'cross-check', 'am I missing something', 'stress-test', 'devil's advocate', 'run a full review', 'this is important', 'high-stakes', 'help me choose between', 'critique…
generator-evaluator-loop
Orchestrate a Coder→Quality iteration loop against a story's Verification contract. Use when a story has a complete Verification section and is ready for execution with automated review.