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 stefaniuk/loadout --skill find-bugsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/stefaniuk/loadoutWrote 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/stefaniuk/loadout/find-bugs)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/stefaniuk/loadout/find-bugs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stefaniuk/loadout/find-bugs/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/stefaniuk/loadout/find-bugs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stefaniuk/loadout/find-bugs.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 | $0.00040 | $0.00646 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00258 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00129 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
find-bugs 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.
This is a copy
94% identical to find-bugs — 2 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
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.
Find Bugs
Review changes on this branch for bugs, security vulnerabilities, and code quality issues.
Phase 1: Complete Input Gathering
- Get the FULL diff:
git diff $(gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef --jq '.defaultBranchRef.name')...HEAD - If output is truncated, read each changed file individually until you have seen every changed line
- List all files modified in this branch before proceeding
Phase 2: Attack Surface Mapping
For each changed file, identify and list:
- All user inputs (request params, headers, body, URL components)
- All database queries
- All authentication/authorization checks
- All session/state operations
- All external calls
- All cryptographic operations
Phase 3: Security Checklist (check EVERY item for EVERY file)
- Injection: SQL, command, template, header injection
- XSS: All outputs in templates properly escaped?
- Authentication: Auth checks on all protected operations?
- Authorization/IDOR: Access control verified, not just auth?
- CSRF: State-changing operations protected?
- Race conditions: TOCTOU in any read-then-write patterns?
- Session: Fixation, expiration, secure flags?
- Cryptography: Secure random, proper algorithms, no secrets in logs?
- Information disclosure: Error messages, logs, timing attacks?
- DoS: Unbounded operations, missing rate limits, resource exhaustion?
- Business logic: Edge cases, state machine violations, numeric overflow?
Phase 4: Verification
For each potential issue:
- Check if it's already handled elsewhere in the changed code
- Search for existing tests covering the scenario
- Read surrounding context to verify the issue is real
Phase 5: Pre-Conclusion Audit
Before finalizing, you MUST:
- List every file you reviewed and confirm you read it completely
- List every checklist item and note whether you found issues or confirmed it's clean
- List any areas you could NOT fully verify and why
- Only then provide your final findings
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 First seen · 76 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 08664c3698f8
find-bugs is a skill published in the GitHub repository stefaniuk/loadout (1 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 646 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to find-bugs, differing in 2 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Review pull requests for repository fit, meaningful value, trustworthy provenance, differentiation, and maintainability in awesome-copilot.
code-review
Reviews code for bugs, security issues, and best practices.
gsd-ns-review
Invoke this Pi skill with /skill:gsd-ns-review.
spec-kitty-mission-review
Review a fully merged Spec Kitty mission post-merge (all WPs done/approved) to verify spec→code fidelity, FR coverage, drift, risks, and security. Triggers: "review the merged mission", "post-merge mission review", "verify the completed mission", "audit the mission implementation", "mission-level acceptance review"…
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…
code-review-csharp
Perform structured code reviews of C# source code covering naming conventions, performance, security, readability, and .NET best practices. Trigger phrases include "review this C# code", "check my C# for best practices", "analyze this C# class", "find issues in my C# code".