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 tomzx/agents --skill audit-functional-suitabilitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tomzx/agentsWrote 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/tomzx/agents/audit-functional-suitability)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tomzx/agents/audit-functional-suitability"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tomzx/agents/audit-functional-suitability/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/tomzx/agents/audit-functional-suitability"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tomzx/agents/audit-functional-suitability.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 | $0.00132 | $0.01987 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00053 | $0.00795 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00397 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00199 |
Grade A, and why
audit-functional-suitability 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 22d 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 — 184 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
TODAY=!date +%Y-%m-%d
Functional Suitability Audit (ISO/IEC 25010)
Audits the codebase for functional suitability: does the software provide the functions needed to meet stated requirements, completely and correctly? It is the bottom-up check that what was supposed to be built is actually built and working.
This is the Functional suitability characteristic of the ISO/IEC 25010 quality model.
Distinct from check-issue-status (which checks whether a single issue is addressed), this audit scans the whole implementation against its requirements corpus and the code's own incompleteness markers (stubs, TODOs, disabled tests).
Prerequisites
- Working directory is the root of the repository
.sdlc/features/*/requirements.mdpresent (improves completeness scoring; if absent, the audit falls back to code-honesty signals only)- Read
.sdlc/context/project-overview.mdif present for scope ghCLI for open bug-issue signals (optional)
What This Checks
| Sub-characteristic | What it means | Signals scanned |
|---|---|---|
| Functional completeness | All required functions are implemented | requirements with no matching code; TODO/FIXME/NotImplemented/stub/501/raise NotImplementedError; feature flags wired but never enabled |
| Functional correctness | Functions produce correct results | open bug issues; skipped/disabled/xfail tests; assertion-free tests; logic that silently no-ops (empty except, return None on happy paths) |
| Functional appropriateness | Functions are suitable for the intended use | requirements whose implementation exists but diverges from the stated acceptance criteria; over-broad or surprising behavior |
Steps
1. Inventory requirements (if .sdlc exists)
For each .sdlc/features/*/requirements.md, extract functional requirements (FR-N) and their acceptance criteria.
Record each as a completeness target.
find .sdlc/features -name requirements.md 2>/dev/null
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.
- 22d ago Changed · +12 lines 88f451f0b92d
- 23d ago Changed · +4 lines 1e70753b000c
- 24d ago Changed 51b06db58674
- 2mo ago First seen · 168 lines · 132 tokens per session scan A 31ec75ceafe8
audit-functional-suitability is a skill published in the GitHub repository tomzx/agents (13 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 132 tokens to every session and 1,987 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 2026-08-31.
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…