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 OutlineDriven/outline-driven-development --skill ax-auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/OutlineDriven/outline-driven-developmentWrote 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/outlinedriven/outline-driven-development/ax-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/outlinedriven/outline-driven-development/ax-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/outlinedriven/outline-driven-development/ax-audit.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, 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 37 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 | $0.00039 | $0.00943 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00472 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00189 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00094 |
Grade A, and why
ax-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 yesterday.
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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- ax-audit — 100% identical, 4 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 58 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
AX audit
Contract
| Field | Bound contract |
|---|---|
| Trigger | Human asks for an agentic experience audit, an AX review, whether something is agent-native, a critique of an AI feature, or whether it earns user trust |
| Authority | Read-only. No file, VCS, credential, paid, published, deployed, or remote mutation. |
| Side effect | Chat output only: a read-only severity-tiered report with a ship-readiness verdict and an AX Relationship Summary |
| Done | Delivered findings with locators (file:line for source, logical bounds for described behavior), an AX Relationship Summary, and a PASS/FAIL/INCOMPLETE verdict |
Inputs
- Target agent system or AI feature under audit: source path, repository, or described behavior. Required.
- Scope boundary: which files, modules, or interaction surfaces are in scope. Required.
- Specific concern or focus area the human wants prioritized. Optional.
Procedure
-
Read the target source or described behavior within the stated scope. Do not mutate anything. Done when: the target is read within the scope boundary.
-
Evaluate the target against two audit axes, each with four rule families. Record every finding with a locator:
file:linefor source-backed targets, or logical bounds (described behavior, interaction surface, or module name) for behavior-only targets.Architecture axis (rules-arch):
- Communication: approval gate present where the agent should act autonomously; completion signal missing or ambiguous; progress not visible to the user during long work.
- Context: no checkpoint or resume across sessions; context injection absent or brittle; context starvation where the agent lacks information it needs to act.
- Granularity: static API mapping where tools mirror raw endpoints instead of workflow-shaped actions; tools too coarse or too fine for the task shape.
- Parity: CRUD coverage incomplete; tool or UI parity gaps where an action exists in one surface but not the other; orphaned UI actions with no backing tool.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- yesterday Changed · -34 tokens per session 9e98e9b147f0
- 3d ago First seen · 58 lines · 73 tokens per session scan A a7216b30947f
ax-audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository OutlineDriven/outline-driven-development (52 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 943 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
create-pull-request
Use when asked to create or update a PR, revise its description, or link issue references to its body. Not for multi-PR stacks: use gate-and-merge. Not for releases: use git-workflow-and-versioning.
audit-project
Run an iterative multi-agent code audit until critical and high findings are resolved. Use when the user says "audit my code", "find all the bugs", "deep code audit", "iterative review", or "review until clean".
gate-and-merge
Use when landing a queue of open PRs: gate each PR, sweep its review feedback to root cause, then merge, repair, hold, or close it. Human-only.
doubt-driven
Use when a non-trivial decision sits under uncertainty and correctness matters more than speed. Not for patch review: use review. Not for plan attacks: use load-bearing-assumption-test.
pr-review-canvas-html
Use when asked to render a GitHub PR as a standalone review HTML page. Fetches PR data via gh API, renders diffs with move detection, and serves the artifact on a local port. Not for Cursor Canvas output — use pr-review-canvas.
review
Use when asked to review a pull request, examine code changes, find bugs, or audit a branch. Standard mode produces a severity-graded validated-findings report with concrete fixes; depth mode fans out parallel bug/security and quality reviewers and synthesizes a unified verdict. Not for an iterative review-and-fix…