Getting it into your agent
There is no command for this one: it runs only inside a plugin, and the catalogue could not identify which plugin ships it. The source is linked below.
Wrote 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/worldbank/open-source-kit/wbg-oss-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/worldbank/open-source-kit/wbg-oss-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/worldbank/open-source-kit/wbg-oss-review/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/worldbank/open-source-kit/wbg-oss-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/worldbank/open-source-kit/wbg-oss-review.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 | $0.00145 | $0.01752 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00072 | $0.00876 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00029 | $0.00350 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00175 |
Grade A, and why
wbg-oss-review 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 10d 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 — 136 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
WBG Open Source Publication — Repo Preparer
This skill helps users audit and prepare a GitHub repository for World Bank Group open source publication. It is designed as a self-service tool — linked from the intranet public repository review request form — so that teams can independently identify and fix compliance gaps before submitting their repo for OSPO review.
You will scan the repo, identify gaps against the official checklist, generate a clear status report, and help create or fix any missing files.
Reference Files
./references/checklist.md— Full detail on each requirement, including required text verbatim and template links./references/templates.md— Starter templates for README sections, CITATION.cff, and the license notice
Workflow
Step 1: Understand the target repo
Ask the user which directory to audit (or confirm if a path is already clear from context). Then scan:
- Root file listing (check for README.md, LICENSE, CITATION.cff, CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, CONTRIBUTING.md,
.env*,*.bib) - Contents of README.md (if it exists)
- Any existing LICENSE file — determine whether the project uses MIT or Apache License, Version 2.0 (see
references/checklist.mdRequirement 3). Verify the README license notice and IGO rider file match that choice (WB-IGO-RIDER.mdwith MIT;WB-IGO-RIDER-APACHE.mdwith Apache). .gitignoreor.env.examplepatterns- A quick search for potential secrets and hard-coded values
Do this scanning in parallel where possible to move fast.
Step 2: Generate the audit report
Produce a structured checklist report with status icons for each requirement. Use this format:
## WBG Open Source Publication — Audit Report
### ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌ [Requirement Name]
**Status**: Pass / Needs Work / Missing
**Finding**: [what you found]
**Action needed**: [what to do, if anything]
Work through all 10 requirements (see reference below). Be specific — don't just say "README is missing a section", say which section and what content would satisfy it.
What ships with it
2 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.
- 10d ago First seen · 136 lines · 145 tokens per session scan A e9785eb0410c
wbg-oss-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository worldbank/open-source-kit (4 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 145 tokens to every session and 1,752 once invoked, about $0.0007 per session on Opus 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
license-comply
Use when auditing open-source dependency licenses in Python projects, generating compliance reports, or checking license risk in your codebase.
app-store-compliance
Run an enterprise pre submission compliance audit on a mobile app project before uploading to the Apple App Store or Google Play. Use when the user is about to submit, ship, or release an iOS or Android app, when an app was rejected and needs a fix plan, when reviewing App Store Review Guidelines or Google Play policy…
iso-27001
Use when the user asks about ISO/IEC 27001:2022 from an engineering perspective — building an ISMS that runs on systems and code rather than spreadsheets, instrumenting Annex A controls, designing risk registers as data, and producing evidence pipelines that hold up to a certification audit. Engineer-voice, not…
nist-800-53
Use when the user asks about NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 from an engineering perspective — selecting baselines, tailoring controls, modeling control inheritance from cloud providers and shared services, emitting OSCAL artifacts, or implementing controls in IaC and code rather than running them as a documentation exercise.…
soc-2
Use when the user asks about SOC 2 from an engineering perspective — Trust Services Criteria (TSC) implementation, evidence-as-code, continuous monitoring patterns, instrumenting controls, or designing systems that produce audit-ready evidence by default. Engineer-voice, not auditor-voice.
akf-trust-metadata
The AI native file format. EXIF for AI — stamps every file with trust scores, source provenance, and compliance metadata. Embeds into 20+ formats (DOCX, PDF, images, code). EU AI Act, SOX, HIPAA auditing.