Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add wenhaochai/claude-plugins/plugin install anti-autoresearchWrote 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/wenhaochai/claude-plugins/consistency-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/wenhaochai/claude-plugins/consistency-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wenhaochai/claude-plugins/consistency-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/wenhaochai/claude-plugins/consistency-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wenhaochai/claude-plugins/consistency-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 | $0.00078 | $0.06941 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00031 | $0.02776 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.01388 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00694 |
Grade A, and why
consistency-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 24d 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
97% identical to consistency-audit — 279 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 — 451 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Consistency Audit — the paper vs itself
Audit intra-paper self-consistency for: $ARGUMENTS (requires claims.json
from /evidence-ledger). Emit span-anchored consistency-audit.findings.json;
the deterministic adjudicator — not this skill — computes the verdict.
🔒 Run once per input change; never wrap in
/loop,/scheduleorCronCreate(${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/support/references/run-cadence.md). Re-run only when the paper or the ledger changes.
The flagship instrument. Internal contradiction is the single most defensible thing you can check on an unknown submission: it needs no external GT, runs at L0 (PDF-only), and is exactly where machine-generated papers crack — they hallucinate local coherence. Recall scales with the ledger: a PDF-text (L0) ledger extracts only number/scope spans, so the table/caption/method-drift checks gain teeth at L1 (LaTeX), where tables and captions are actually extracted. Adapted from ARIS
paper-claim-audit, reframed from "paper vs result files" to "paper vs itself." There is no external ground truth in this skill.
Read reference/rationale.md for why this skill exists (the self-contradictions it targets and why it is the flagship L0 auditor).
Core principle
Ledger-anchored, span-verified, paper-vs-itself, reviewer≠adjudicator. Two passes feed the pipeline:
- a deterministic arithmetic pass (no model) — reproducible, the eval backbone;
- a fresh cross-model semantic pass — meaning drift the arithmetic can't see.
Both emit findings conforming to schemas/finding.schema.json. Every above-info
finding cites a ledger claim_id + a verbatim span (references/integrity-forensics-contract.md
rules 1–2). The model proposes; tools/adjudicate_findings.py decides
(references/reviewer-independence.md Layer 2). This skill computes no verdict.
How this differs from the other auditors (route correctly)
This skill answers one question at L0 with no external lookup: does the paper contradict ITSELF, or
does the described method differ from the evaluated one? Hand off instead: code/result fraud →
experiment-forensics (L2); "first / SOTA" → baseline-comparison-audit + citation-forensics
(needs_external_check); citations → citation-forensics; proofs → proof-derivation-forensics;
surface → presentation-signals; rejection memo → adversarial-case-builder. Read reference/routing.md
when unsure which auditor owns a finding.
What ships with it
3 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 24d ago Changed · -201 lines 85975d022bf5
- 1mo ago Changed · -55 tokens per session af1d11cb5299
- 1mo ago Changed 69c6744215b7
- 1mo ago Changed 12e50e74f8f9
- 1mo ago First seen · 652 lines · 133 tokens per session scan A e878b57066d9
consistency-audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository wenhaochai/claude-plugins (18 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 78 tokens to every session and 6,941 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 97% identical to consistency-audit, differing in 279 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
local-ai-agents
Build local-first AI agents that run entirely on a developer workstation with Microsoft Foundry Local and Qwen function-calling models. Covers Small Language Models (SLMs), the OpenAI-compatible local endpoint, sandboxed local tools, local RAG with Chroma, local MCP servers, hybrid cloud/local routing, and the…
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
next-cache-components-adoption
Turn on Cache Components in a Next.js app and resolve the blocking routes it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable, adopt, or migrate to Cache Components, flip the cacheComponents flag, work through a flood of blocking-prerender / instant validation errors, run the cache-components-instant-false codemod, or…
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…
insight-error-page
Write or audit an insight-kind error page for the Next.js dev overlay. Use when creating a new errors/ .mdx page, auditing an existing one, or checking that a page matches the framework fix cards. Covers page structure, title alignment, FixCard cards with Copy prompt button, code snippets, terminology verification…