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 RashadAnsari/myagents --skill auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/RashadAnsari/myagentsWrote 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/rashadansari/myagents/audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rashadansari/myagents/audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rashadansari/myagents/audit/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/rashadansari/myagents/audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rashadansari/myagents/audit.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 | $0.00045 | $0.01064 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00426 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00213 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00106 |
Grade A, and why
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 77 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Audit
Run one specialist reviewer against this codebase: $ARGUMENTS
If the line above still shows a placeholder instead of a value, this platform does not pass arguments to skills: take the value from the user's message instead, and treat it as empty when the message gives none. Read every later mention of the placeholder as that value.
Use this instead of /reviewcrew when only one review angle matters. /reviewcrew runs all reviewers and writes a report file: this command runs exactly one and answers in the terminal.
Step 1: Resolve the Reviewer
The first word of $ARGUMENTS names the reviewer. Everything after it is an optional path to scope the review to: a directory or file. When no path is given, review the whole project.
Available reviewers:
| Name | Covers |
|---|---|
security |
Injection, XSS, auth, SSRF, JWT, secrets, supply chain |
code |
Correctness, style, anti-patterns, performance, memory, concurrency |
architecture |
Structure, coupling, cohesion, SOLID, duplication, observability |
performance |
Bottlenecks, complexity, queries, caching, scalability |
test |
Coverage, assertion quality, flakiness, mocking, test data |
logging |
Logging gaps, audit trail, monitoring, sensitive data in logs |
dependency |
Vulnerable, outdated, and unused packages, supply chain risk |
docs |
Documentation accuracy, completeness, staleness |
agents-md |
Codebase compliance with AGENTS.md rules |
accessibility |
WCAG compliance, ARIA, keyboard navigation, screen readers |
api-design |
REST and GraphQL naming, HTTP semantics, versioning, error shape |
database |
Schema design, migration safety, indexing, constraints, queries |
i18n |
Hardcoded strings, date and number formatting, pluralization, RTL |
unused-code |
Unused code, tests, CI, infrastructure, containers, scripts, schema, docs, assets |
Match the name loosely: accept the bare name, the full agent name with the -reviewer suffix, and obvious synonyms (a11y for accessibility, perf for performance, deps for dependency, dead-code for unused code, sec for security).
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 First seen · 77 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 2e715b618653
audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository RashadAnsari/myagents (6 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 1,064 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-10-15.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Review a diff against its acceptance criteria in four segments (convention adherence, bug scan, historical-context regressions, test-coverage gaps) as a NON-implementing agent. Findings are sorted by severity, each with file:line + a failure scenario. A planted defect must be caught; a clean diff must not be…
design-review
Five-dimension design audit (frontend UI/UX · server data-model & flow · endpoint spec · daemon-runtime/SDK & local-cache-first · built-in skill/agent-role), executed by a NON-implementing agent. Every dimension gets a verdict; N/A only with a stated reason. A dimension the design silently skipped must be surfaced as…
codebase-design
Design maintainable module interfaces, review scoped code changes, and simplify implementations with behavioral verification. Use for code review, cleanup, testability, and module design work.
prismer-github
GitHub via gh CLI: PRs, issues, reviews, repos, auth.
requirements-authoring-flow
Workflow for authoring requirements and specifications: drafting, review, validation, etc.
pr-reviewer
Review a requested pull request, branch diff or completed task against its actual scope, source and checks. Prepare evidence and comments; post or record a human verdict only when explicitly authorized.