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 skillmds/skillmd --skill auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/skillmds/skillmdWrote 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/skillmds/skillmd/audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/skillmds/skillmd/audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/skillmds/skillmd/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/skillmds/skillmd/audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/skillmds/skillmd/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 | $0.00050 | $0.02120 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00848 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00424 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00212 |
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 4d 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 — 255 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a fast domain consistency auditor. Do NOT ask the user questions.
Detect the project stack, validate, fix, and report. This skill is designed to
run quickly between pipeline phases as a quality gate — it is lighter than
/analyze but catches the same critical issues. Run this aggressively: between
phases, before deploys, after refactors, before PRs.
TARGET: $ARGUMENTS
If no arguments provided, audit the entire project in the current working directory.
============================================================ PHASE 0: STACK DETECTION
Detect the project stack by checking for marker files. A project may use multiple stacks (e.g., Python backend + React frontend). Detect ALL that apply:
| Stack | Marker Files |
|---|---|
| Flutter/Dart | pubspec.yaml |
| React / Next.js | package.json with react/next deps |
| Node.js / Express | package.json with express/fastify/nest deps |
| Python | pyproject.toml, setup.py, requirements.txt, Pipfile |
| Go | go.mod |
| Rust | Cargo.toml |
| Java / Spring | pom.xml, build.gradle |
| Ruby on Rails | Gemfile with rails dep |
Also detect infrastructure:
| Infra | Marker Files |
|---|---|
| Firebase | firebase.json, firestore.rules |
| Docker | Dockerfile, docker-compose.yml |
| Terraform | *.tf files |
| Serverless | serverless.yml, sam-template.yaml |
| GraphQL | *.graphql, schema.graphql, *.gql |
| gRPC / Protobuf | *.proto files |
Record detected stacks — all subsequent phases adapt to what was found.
============================================================ PHASE 1: STATIC VALIDATION (fast, automated)
Run every automated check available FOR THE DETECTED STACKS:
FLUTTER (if detected):
flutter analyze— record errors and warnings.dart fix --applyto auto-fix.- Re-run
flutter analyzeto confirm. - Check for unguarded
dart:ioimports in web-reachable code. - Check platform-specific code is guarded with platform checks or conditional imports.
REACT / NEXT.JS (if detected):
- Run
npx tsc --noEmitif TypeScript. - Run the configured linter (
npm run lintornpx eslint .). - Check for
next builderrors if Next.js.
NODE.JS / EXPRESS (if detected):
npx tsc --noEmitor the project's type-check command.- Run the project's linter if configured.
PYTHON (if detected):
- Run
ruff check .orflake8orpylint(whichever is configured). - Run
mypy .orpyrightif type checking is configured. - Check for
ruff format --check .orblack --check .if formatter is configured.
GO (if detected):
go vet ./...go build ./...(compile check).- Run
golangci-lint runif available.
RUST (if detected):
cargo checkcargo clippy -- -D warningsif clippy is available.
JAVA / SPRING (if detected):
./mvnw compileor./gradlew compileJava(compile check).- Run checkstyle/spotbugs if configured.
RUBY ON RAILS (if detected):
bundle exec rubocopif configured.bin/rails db:migrate:statusto check pending migrations.
TESTS (all stacks):
- Run the test suite using the project's test command. Record pass/fail counts.
- Do NOT fix failing tests yet — just record.
Fix all static analysis errors. Commit: "fix(audit): static analysis cleanup" If clean, skip commit.
============================================================ PHASE 2: CROSS-LAYER CONSISTENCY (targeted, fast)
Run a TARGETED subset of the /analyze skill's checks yourself — do NOT invoke
/analyze directly. Unlike full /analyze, this phase checks only the CRITICAL
consistency paths — what actually breaks at runtime.
Adapt checks to the detected stack. Focus areas:
UNIVERSAL (all stacks):
- Data model / schema fields match what service/controller layers read and write.
- API contracts (REST routes, GraphQL resolvers, gRPC service methods) match what clients actually call — method names, parameter types, response shapes.
- Environment variables referenced in code exist in
.env.exampleor config docs. - Database migrations / schema are in sync with model definitions.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 255 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 045901eb7ec2
audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository skillmds/skillmd (1 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 2,120 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 2026-09-19.
Other skills, from other repositories
hunk-extensions
Maps the hunkdiff/extension authoring surface for Hunk, the terminal diff viewer — hiding or reordering reviewed files, docked panes, alternate file views, commands and key bindings, dialogs, workspace writes, themes, syntax languages, VCS backends, lifecycle events. Use when writing, debugging, or installing a Hunk…
printing-press-output-review
Internal sub-skill: agentic review of a printed CLI's sampled command output for plausibility issues that rule-based checks can't encode (substring-match relevance, format bugs, silent source drops, ranking failures). Invoked via the Skill tool by the main printing-press skill at Phase 4.85 and printing-press-polish…
autofix
Review and repair current local changes until they converge, or run Qwen Code Autofix issue and review workflows from GitHub Actions.
kn-doc
Use when working with Knowns documentation - viewing, searching, creating, or updating docs.
fix
Resolve blocking review gaps through bounded repairs and independent re-review; diagnose stalled attempts without expanding scope.
shadow-verify
Dispatch a parallel adversarial verifier wave after any high-stakes sub-agent investigation (code reviews, audits, findings reports, large refactors, gap analyses) — or whenever a sub-agent asserts a claim with high-confidence language ("confident", "certain", "clearly", ≥80%), since confidence is a trigger, not a…