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 nortonx/ai-tooling-free --skill check-drygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nortonx/ai-tooling-freeWrote 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/nortonx/ai-tooling-free/check-dry)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nortonx/ai-tooling-free/check-dry"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nortonx/ai-tooling-free/check-dry/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/nortonx/ai-tooling-free/check-dry"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nortonx/ai-tooling-free/check-dry.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 | $0.00022 | $0.00909 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00454 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00182 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00091 |
Grade A, and why
check-dry 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 — 76 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Arguments
[branch | <path>]
- Optional. Pass
branchto diff against the resolved base branch; pass a file/directory path to scope; omit to scan the full codebase. - If you pass anything else (a non-existent path, an unrecognized flag), the skill stops and asks for clarification rather than guessing.
- Examples:
/check-dry,/check-dry branch,/check-dry src/services
Copilot CLI note:
$ARGUMENTSdoesn't substitute in skills — include the argument inline in your prompt.
Check DRY Violations
Analyze $ARGUMENTS for DRY violations that signal missing abstractions.
Scope
Determine scope from $ARGUMENTS, in this order:
- Literal
branch→ diff between this branch and the base branch. Resolve the base branch as:git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEADif it resolves, elsemainif it exists, elsemaster. If neither exists, stop and ask. - An existing file or directory path → analyze that specific target only.
- Empty → scan the full codebase under the current working directory (excluding
node_modules,dist,build,.git, and any path in.gitignore). - Anything else (a non-existent path, a flag the skill doesn't recognize) → stop and ask the user to clarify rather than guess.
Detection Criteria
Flag duplication only when it meets all of these:
- Code appears 3+ times (two occurrences may be coincidental)
- The duplicated blocks change together — shared intent, not just shared syntax
- A single abstraction (function, component, module) can replace all occurrences without forced generality
Ignore: boilerplate required by the framework, test setup/fixtures, and config files.
Output format
For each finding, report:
- File and line number(s) of every duplicate occurrence
- What's duplicated and why it matters (shared intent vs coincidental similarity)
- Proposed abstraction — name, signature, and placement — with a code example
- Risk — what breaks if refactored incorrectly
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 · 76 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 10cbbb2cc1dd
check-dry is a skill published in the GitHub repository nortonx/ai-tooling-free (1 stars, last pushed 27d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 909 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
go-code-reviewer
Review Go code with a defect-first approach using repository policy (constitution.md first, then AGENTS.md fallback). Use for code review, PR review, quality checks, risk analysis, and regression detection.
go-review-lead
Orchestrate a comprehensive Go code review by triaging code changes, dispatching vertical review skills (security, concurrency, error, logic, performance, quality, test, observability) as parallel agents, then consolidating results into a unified report. Use for full Go PR review or comprehensive code review. Replaces…
security-review
A code-security review guide that checks code changes, pull requests, or services for risks an attacker could exploit.
go-concurrency-review
Review Go code for concurrency safety and goroutine lifecycle issues including race conditions, deadlocks, goroutine leaks, mutex misuse, and context propagation. Trigger when code contains go func, channels, sync primitives, WaitGroup, errgroup, or goroutine lifecycle management. Use for concurrency-focused review of…
go-error-review
Review Go code for error handling correctness, nil safety, and failure-path integrity including ignored errors, missing wrapping, panic misuse, SQL/HTTP resource lifecycle, and transaction patterns. Trigger when code contains error returns, panic calls, sql.Rows, transactions, HTTP client/server code, or nil-sensitive…
go-observability-review
Review Go code for observability gaps: missing structured logging, broken trace context propagation, Prometheus cardinality explosions, span lifecycle errors, and sensitive fields in logs. Dispatched by go-review-lead as a vertical reviewer. Also trigger directly when the user says "review my logging", "check my…