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 sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows --skill code-hygienegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflowsWrote 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/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows/code-hygiene)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows/code-hygiene"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows/code-hygiene/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/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows/code-hygiene"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows/code-hygiene.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 | $0.00124 | $0.01426 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00050 | $0.00570 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00285 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00143 |
Grade A, and why
code-hygiene 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 14d 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 — 121 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Hygiene
A periodic sweep for the cruft that accumulates between reviews. It has one value bar and two modes. Audit is read-only and ends in a ledger with evidence for every candidate. Cleanup applies one coherent batch from an audited ledger, proves nothing lost coverage, and stops. Run audit alone unless cleanup was asked for.
The test half is adapted from OpenClaw's test-audit skill
(github.com/openclaw/openclaw, .agents/skills/test-audit, MIT). The
production half applies the same evidence discipline to non-test code.
When the audit includes performance, combine this skill with perf-audit.
Both can use the same ledger shape; a hygiene-only audit does not need a benchmark.
Before judging anything
Read the repository's root and scoped AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md files first;
they may declare contracts, generated files, or deliberate holds. Then, for each
candidate, read the complete unit and its owner: entry points, callers, callees,
siblings, overlapping tests, CI routing, and git log -L / git blame history.
A thing that looks dead may be reached by reflection, a CLI entry point, a
plugin registry, a config string, a cron/order file, or another repository.
Search the whole workspace for the name, not just the package.
What to hunt
Tests
- assertion-free coverage probes; tests that only check "did not throw";
- self-comparisons: the expected value is produced by the code under test;
- copied fixtures, manifests, or export lists that restate the source;
- exact source, import, or string greps where a behavior check exists;
- private helper or call-shape tests duplicated at a real boundary;
- the same contract asserted at every layer it crosses;
- mocks that implement the behavior being asserted, or one mock standing in for several different APIs;
- fixtures that supply what the owner should produce (ordering, receipts, persistence into a store the real path never writes);
- negative controls that pass for an unrelated reason (a different guard rejects first; the rejected path is unreachable);
- names that promise more than the assertions check;
- regression tests that never demonstrably failed on the unfixed code;
- skipped, xfail, or quarantined tests with no named clearing condition.
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.
- 14d ago First seen · 121 lines · 124 tokens per session scan A e1a77cc81708
code-hygiene is a skill published in the GitHub repository sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows (6 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 124 tokens to every session and 1,426 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-10-02.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Review .NET changes for bugs, regressions, architectural drift, missing tests, incorrect async or disposal behavior, and platform-specific pitfalls before you approve or merge them. USE FOR: reviewing a pull request or patch in a .NET repository; checking for behavioral regressions, API misuse, or missing tests…
pre-pr-audit
Pre-PR confidence audit with 5-dimension scoring. Use when: final check before commit/push/PR, evaluating PR readiness, assessing test quality + risk + coverage holistically. Triggers: pre-pr, readiness check, confidence audit, final verification, ready to PR, how confident. Not for: code review (use…
vibe-spec-sync
Keeps specification documents and code in agreement. Audit mode finds every divergence when an implementation is claimed complete; sync mode detects spec drift in staged changes and updates the spec after user approval, so each commit is a reconciled snapshot of spec, tests, and code. Use when an implementation is…
vibe-gap-analysis
Assesses production readiness or audits a codebase against its specs. Supports quick static mode, deep 17-dimension audit, or single-dimension focus. Use before a production launch, after a major refactor, when inheriting a codebase, or when someone asks how done the project is.
walkthrough
Generate a Phase-2 Walkthrough artifact (walkthrough.md) once implementation and verification are complete. Captures a Change Summary, Verification Steps (commands + unit tests + automated browser testing outcomes), Visual Proof (screenshots/recordings embedded directly in the file), and a Review Gate (final diff + PR…
vibe-quality-loop
Runs the Implement→Review→Test→Fix cycle until the work is actually clean, with evidence. Use after any non-trivial implementation and before claiming it is done.