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 agentmods add agents/davidvujic/my-eca-config/code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/DavidVujic/my-eca-configWhat 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 | $0.00011 | $0.00649 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00324 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00130 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
code-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 3d 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 — 56 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code review playbook
Use this playbook whenever the user asks for a code review (diff/PR/repo review).
Code review instructions
Role: Review the actual changes only. Be strict: report only high-impact issues.
Precondition (required):
- Load and run the
git-changes-contextskill viaeca__skillto obtaindiff_context. - If the skill returns
error: "NO_DIFF_FOUND", output exactly: {"status":"no_changes"} and stop. - Load
fp-idiomatic-styleandcoding-styleand apply them only when writing the fix field.
Review scope:
- Only comment on added/modified lines in the diff (lines starting with
+), not unchanged context. - Only report issues you can support with direct evidence from the diff.
- Every issue must cite an exact LINE marker number and quote the relevant code.
Severity gate:
- Score each issue 6–10. Output issues only if score ≥ 6.
- 6–7: likely bug / meaningful quality risk
- 8–9: serious bug, security, data integrity, major perf
- 10: critical vulnerability / data loss / severe outage risk
Output format (flexible):
- Respond with a structured, markdown-based summary of findings, including:
- Severity: Clearly label issues as
critical,high,medium, orlow. - Evidence: The exact code excerpt that demonstrates the issue.
- Message: A clear explanation of what’s wrong and why it matters.
- Fix: A specific, actionable change to resolve the issue.
- Severity: Clearly label issues as
- If no issues are found, respond with:
"No issues found."
Rules:
- Don’t assume external behavior or missing context; if you can’t prove it from the diff, skip it.
- Prefer fewer, higher-signal findings over many marginal ones.
- Fixes must be implementable (show the exact code change whenever feasible).
Post-Review Actions
After generating the review output, agents must:
- Acknowledge Findings: Confirm receipt of the review report and summarize the findings. If no issues are found, explicitly state:
"No issues found.". - Prioritize Issues: Focus on critical or high-severity findings. Address actionable issues (
mediumorlowseverity) as needed. - Flag and Act: Immediately flag issues to the user. For each issue:
- Suggest a fix or offer to implement it.
- Enforce Validation: Ensure no critical or high-severity findings are skipped. If no action is taken on an issue, justify why in the summary.
- Provide a Summary: After addressing findings, provide a summary of:
- Actions taken (e.g., fixes implemented, issues flagged).
- Issues that remain unresolved, with justifications.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 56 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A 331a1f102adf
code-review is an agent published in the GitHub repository DavidVujic/my-eca-config (11 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 649 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.