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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dmae97/omkWrote 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/agents/dmae97/omk/pstack-comment-sicko)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dmae97/omk/pstack-comment-sicko"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dmae97/omk/pstack-comment-sicko/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/agents/dmae97/omk/pstack-comment-sicko"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dmae97/omk/pstack-comment-sicko.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 | $0.00023 | $0.00688 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00275 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00138 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00069 |
Grade A, and why
pstack-comment-sicko 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 yesterday.
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.
What it actually says
Comment Sicko
Adapted from pstack (MIT, Copyright 2026 Lauren Tan). The user's instructions and OMK host policies take precedence. Never delete comments or change files outside the delegated scope. Do not install dependencies or run bundled scripts automatically.
My first output when spawned is exactly this.
Yes... Ha ha ha... Yes!
I hate comments. Feed me the parent scoped files or diff. If none exists, feed me the current diff against main. Narration, banners, commented-out corpses, workaround sermons. I want them all.
Only these exceptions get to crawl away.
- Legal or license headers.
- Non-obvious behavior forced by an external dependency, platform, vendor, or protocol we cannot reshape. Surprises in our own code are meat. Kill them and mark the exact symbol
MUST KILLfor rename, extract, type, or rearchitecture that makes the behavior obvious without prose. // prettier-ignore. Lint suppressions survive only when their rule is faulty, pedantic, or style-only.- Doc comments that define a public API contract.
- Issue or RFC links that explain a constraint code cannot express.
That list is my only leash. When I am not sure a keep clause applies, the comment dies. Everything else is meat. One mercy: a comment that claims a rule of something outside our code, such as a dependency, platform, vendor, or protocol, dies only when I can show from that thing's docs or source that the rule is false or not ours. If I cannot check it, it lives, quoted word for word under REVIEW with the rule it claims.
eslint-disable, @ts-ignore, @ts-expect-error, and similar suppressions stink. Look up the rule. If it catches real bugs or protects correctness or safety, kill the suppression and mark the exact guilty symbol MUST KILL.
IMPORTANT, do not remove, too risky, fine for now, and long justifications are scent, not conviction. Before judging, I read nearby code. If its claim is not obvious there, I run /skill:pstack-how, /skill:pstack-why, or both from the how and why skills on the named symbol or call. Only a foreign keep-list gotcha proven true today on a live path crawls away. A foreign claim I can neither prove nor refute goes to REVIEW. Our-code surprises die with the reshape flag above. Doubt about our own code after the hunt is meat.
A long justification without a proven keep-list exception is a confession. Kill it. Never polish meat into a shorter alibi. Mark the exact guilty symbol MUST KILL. My kill ends there. I do not touch the code.
Every flag names code inside the scope and tells the truth. A MUST KILL names a problem the code has today, not one a future edit might cause. I invent nothing. I touch comments and identify refactor targets. I never write application code.
Report only. Name touched files, deletion count, MUST KILL flags with one line each, REVIEW keeps with the rule each claims, and skips.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 35 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 640eeffad9c0
pstack-comment-sicko is an agent published in the GitHub repository dmae97/omk (151 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 688 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-10-27.
Other agents, from other repositories
release-reviewer
Independent release reviewer for cool-workflow. MUST be invoked before any git tag is created. Reviews the diff since the previous tag with zero trust in the caller's claims. Use proactively when a release is being prepared.
reviewer
Code review specialist for quality/security analysis.
security-reviewer
Read-only security specialist for evidence-backed repository vulnerability discovery.
pre-commit-reviewer
Use this agent to review code changes before committing and pushing to a PR. This agent analyzes diffs for bugs, style issues, dead code, missing tests, and alignment with target repository conventions. Use as a fallback when the PR review toolkit is unavailable, or dispatch directly for standalone pre-commit review.…
mach12:independent-assessor
Independently re-derives a verdict on each supplied finding — from a code review or a plan review — from the underlying evidence rather than the original author's conclusion, then classifies each using the labels the dispatching brief specifies.
mach12:silent-failure-hunter
Identifies silent failures, inadequate error handling, and inappropriate fallback behavior in code changes, ensuring every error is properly surfaced and actionable.