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 | $0.00910 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00364 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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.
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:
$ARGUMENTSdoes not 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 does not 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 is 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.
- 1mo ago Changed 1d9a0ef644b3
- 1mo 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 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 910 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
adapter-audit
Use this skill to audit CLI adapter projects (like opencli) for missing output fields, then batch-generate fixes and submit PRs. Turns AI agents into adapter quality reviewers.
security-audit
Deep adversarial security audit engine for full-stack web applications. Use this skill when the user wants to audit a codebase for security vulnerabilities, broken access control, injection risks, authentication weaknesses, payment security, file upload exploits, IDOR, CSRF, SSRF, RLS bypass, business logic abuse…
roblox-code-review
Use to review Luau / Roblox code for server-authority holes, anti-slop violations, replication mistakes, and Roblox-specific bugs before merge. Use when the user says "review this code", "code review", "review the PR", "audit this script", "is this server-safe", or after roblox-forge ships a non-trivial change.
roblox-anti-slop
Use to strip enterprise jargon (Controller, Service-as-non-engine-service, Repository, DTO, Manager, Handler) out of Luau code and rewrite it as Roblox-native. Use when reviewing generated code that looks like Java enterprise architecture, when the user complains it doesn't "feel like Roblox", or as a final pass after…
spec-kitty-runtime-review
Review runtime-owned outputs using the Spec Kitty review workflow surface, then direct approval or rejection with structured feedback. Triggers: "review this work package", "check runtime output", "approve this step", "review WP", "is this WP ready to approve", "check this implementation". Does NOT handle: setup-only…
adversarial-squad
Deploy a bounded, profile-loaded adversarial review squad at an SDD point-cut (post-spec, post-plan, post-tasks, pre-merge, or an ad-hoc decision) so independent doctrine lenses converge on findings one reviewer would miss. Triggers: "deploy a squad", "adversarial squad", "post-tasks anti-laziness pass", "pre-spec…