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 theafh/ai-modules --skill task_auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/theafh/ai-modulesWrote 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/theafh/ai-modules/task_audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/theafh/ai-modules/task_audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/theafh/ai-modules/task_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/theafh/ai-modules/task_audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/theafh/ai-modules/task_audit.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00062 | $0.02066 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00826 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00413 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00207 |
Grade A, and why
task_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 15d 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 — 74 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
task_audit
<task_audit_skill>
<when_to_activate> Activate when the user wants a task's done-ness checked against reality:
- "Is
<task>actually done?" / "audit this task" / "verify the work is really implemented." - "Check
<task>against the code before I close it." - "Re-check this archived task. Did the codebase drift from it?"
Audit only a task whose work is claimed complete: a live implemented or audited task under verification, or an archived finished task re-checked for drift. Decline a task whose body is still a plan.
Route elsewhere when the user wants to assess a task's readiness before building (task_check), automatically repair readiness issues before building (task_auto_check), choose what to work on next (task_select), do the implementation work (task_implement), close and archive a task (task_finish), or audit the whole tree's lint health (task_fix).
</when_to_activate>
<path_resolution>
The bundled scripts (discover_tasks.sh, lint.py) ship in scripts/ next to the base task skill's SKILL.md, not next to this one. After reading that base SKILL.md (per <authority>), resolve each script's absolute path by combining the directory you loaded it from with scripts/<script-name> and invoke that absolute path, never a bare scripts/..., which resolves against the current working directory (the target project) rather than the skill, and so finds the project's own scripts/ or nothing. If the first invocation reports a missing file, re-resolve the absolute path once before treating the script as failed.
</path_resolution>
- Read the task end-to-end. Understand the desired behaviour, the
## Approach, the scope and any Out of scope block, and every## Acceptanceitem. This is the contract you audit against. - Understand what is actually built. Read the implemented code and the existing tests around the work to establish what is really in place, not what the task claims.
- Verify each item against the code. Walk every body item and every
## Acceptancecheck and confirm the codebase covers it. Confirm thedesign-extendedsignal matches what the built change actually did, reading absence asfalseper the base<frontmatter>entry: a recordedtrueneeds a design extension to justify it, and afalseor absent signal needs the change to have genuinely left goals, stack, and design decisions alone. Treat a missing field on a task implement stamped as a recording gap worth naming, while an absent field on a task predating the field is legitimate and draws no finding. Trust the code, not the prose. - Audit the tests as first-class. When
TESTING.mdexists at the project root, read it for project-specific testing details (stack, runner, layout, thresholds) before judging the test surface. When it is absent, continue with the repo and task context already loaded. Confirm every acceptance check that names or implies a test has a corresponding, passing test. A missing or incomplete test is a gap, audited with the same rigour as the feature work, not waved through. - Run the suite and attribute every failure. Execute the verifications the task and repo name under the base
<verification_economy>rule, running fresh wherever this session holds no citable prior run (a cross-session audit inherits no run from the session that built the work, so it runs the checks itself), and accepting a recorded expensive-surface result as evidence only when it postdates every artifact under test. Record each failure or warning as evidence. Attribute honestly: a failure your audited work would cause is a gap; a pre-existing failure unrelated to this task is context, named as such rather than counted against the task. - Stamp the verdict. When every body item, acceptance check, required test, and the
design-extendedsignal check is confirmed and the current task status isimplemented, stampstatus: auditedand bumpupdated. A clean verdict over a task alreadyauditedor archived asfinishedleaves its status as it is. When gaps remain on animplementedtask, leave the status as it is and route the gaps totask_implement. When gaps thattask_implementshould fix remain on anauditedtask, writestatus: implementedand bumpupdated, which is the base<status_discipline>re-audit re-open, and route the gaps totask_implementon the same task. Route gaps on an archivedfinishedtask, and any finding the base<status_discipline>follow-up rule sends to a new task, to a new task under that rule.
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.
- 15d ago Changed f2a162d5beee
- 17d ago Changed 0b5d51549c45
- 1mo ago Changed 25e84eadfc6b
- 1mo ago First seen · 74 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A 71776c4bd568
task_audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository theafh/ai-modules (38 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 2,066 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…