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 urmzd/dotfiles --skill check-projectgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/urmzd/dotfilesWrote 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/urmzd/dotfiles/check-project)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/urmzd/dotfiles/check-project"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/urmzd/dotfiles/check-project/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/urmzd/dotfiles/check-project"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/urmzd/dotfiles/check-project.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 | $0.00082 | $0.01357 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00033 | $0.00543 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00271 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00136 |
Grade A, and why
check-project 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 135 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Check Project
Audit a project against the conventions defined in scaffold-project, write-readme, and the language-specific scaffold skills. Report PASS/WARN/FAIL per check with actionable fix suggestions.
Required Files
Every project must have these. Report FAIL if missing:
| File | What to Check |
|---|---|
README.md |
Exists; has centered header block |
AGENTS.md |
Exists |
LICENSE |
Exists; contains "Apache" |
CONTRIBUTING.md |
Exists |
CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md |
Exists; Contributor Covenant 2.1 (see community-health) |
SECURITY.md |
Exists; has vulnerability reporting instructions; no unrendered {REPO} or {CURRENT_MAJOR} placeholders; contact matches $PROJECT_CONTACT or git config user.email |
.github/pull_request_template.md |
Exists; has Summary, Changes, Verification sections; no unrendered {CHECK_COMMAND} placeholder (see community-health) |
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml |
Exists; YAML issue form (see community-health) |
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml |
Exists; YAML issue form (see community-health) |
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml |
Exists; blank_issues_enabled: false; contact links for security + discussions (see community-health) |
sr.yaml |
Exists; has git.tag_prefix: "v" and git.floating_tag: true |
.envrc |
Exists (direnv config: layout, dotenv, env vars, etc.) |
llms.txt |
Exists |
skills/*/SKILL.md |
At least one skill exists |
.github/workflows/ci.yml |
Exists (or terraform.yml for Terraform projects) |
.github/workflows/release.yml |
Exists (or terraform.yml for Terraform projects) |
Documentation Completeness
Report WARN if missing:
| File | Condition |
|---|---|
docs/ |
Directory should exist in every non-trivial project |
CHANGELOG.md |
Should exist after first release (auto-generated by sr) |
CODEOWNERS |
Should exist for team projects with multiple contributors |
CI Consistency
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 · 135 lines · 82 tokens per session scan A a2763ead720b
check-project is a skill published in the GitHub repository urmzd/dotfiles (5 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 82 tokens to every session and 1,357 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
pr-review
Intelligent PR code review with dynamic agent allocation based on change types. Analyzes PR changes and generates targeted review tasks.
analyze-pr
Analyze a GitHub/GitLab Pull Request by fetching its diff, reading its web description, and generating a comprehensive document. Use when the user provides a PR link and wants to understand what changes the PR introduces, or asks to review/analyze/summarize a pull request.
review-code
Standalone code review for any scope — PR number, branch, file paths, or current changes. Synthesizes intent, runs 11 parallel specialized agents, and presents actionable findings with a verdict. For PR scope, optionally posts the review to GitHub with inline comments.
review-converge
Autonomously review and fix the current branch or specified scope in iterative rounds until clean, leaving all changes in the working tree. Escalates only genuine design decisions. Ends with a transparent report of every round, every fix, and anything it couldn't resolve.
review-pr-comments-converge
Fetch PR review comments, validate each against the actual code, auto-fix obvious issues, and escalate genuine design decisions. Leaves all changes in the working tree. Use when you want to action reviewer feedback autonomously.
review-prs
Fetch and present a prioritized summary of all PRs awaiting the current user's review across the relevant projects and provide an interactive workflow helping the user phrase and post inline review comments and overall review decisions.