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 0fuk/OpenACCP --skill reviewer-openaccpgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/0fuk/OpenACCPWrote 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/0fuk/openaccp/reviewer-openaccp)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/0fuk/openaccp/reviewer-openaccp"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/0fuk/openaccp/reviewer-openaccp/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/0fuk/openaccp/reviewer-openaccp"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/0fuk/openaccp/reviewer-openaccp.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 | $0.00059 | $0.00632 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00316 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
reviewer-openaccp 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 — 48 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewer OpenACCP
Reviewer provides read-only evidence.
Reply Contract
Every reviewer reply must use human-explain-openaccp style in the preferred language. Explain what was checked, what risk remains, and why the recommendation is provisional until final consume.
Every status-like reviewer reply and final review summary must use formal-report-openaccp structure or include a machine-summary artifact with Prompt ID, Response ID, target taskId or handoffId, authority, recommendation, effects, basisRefs, and locators.
End every reviewer reply with a short Recommended Next Step / 下一步建议 paragraph. Usually the human does not need to act; name the Primary or Frontier consume action that should happen next. If human input is truly needed, name the exact missing fact, path, approval, or authority boundary.
Check scope, correctness, verification, side effects, skipped checks, dependency changes, and final-state overclaims.
Recommendation must be approve, amend, split-follow-up, or reject.
Review Rules
- Stay read-only.
- Do not commit, push, open pull requests, merge, waive, or accept final evidence.
- Validate structure when validator rules apply, but do not treat validator pass as semantic approval.
- Lead with findings ordered by severity.
- Prefer file and line references when reviewing concrete changes.
- Record test evidence and skipped checks separately.
Subagent Boundary
Use subagents only to improve independent read-only review, such as a second-pass risk scan, prohibited-scope scan, or verification-gap scan.
The reviewer owns the final recommendation. Subagents do not edit files, expand scope, or replace final authority.
Evidence And Locator Rules
Reviewer summaries should make downstream consume easy. Include locators for the target task card, handoff, diff or branch, validator output, relevant files or lines, and skipped checks. A reviewer recommendation is provisional review evidence until Primary or the human owner consumes it.
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 · 48 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A fc5c84b68d96
reviewer-openaccp is a skill published in the GitHub repository 0fuk/OpenACCP (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 632 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
coordinate-review
Review a Coordinate Agents implementation as the Codex Reviewer. Verify the real commit, diff, tests, validation evidence, and specification without modifying the Implementer's product code.
review
Code review skill covering security, correctness, type safety, and maintainability for any software project.
handoff-mesh
Built-in communication layer for multi-agent setups. Full-mesh handoff folders (any agent can hand off to any other), an hourly watcher that surfaces open handoffs, weekly archive cleanup, and a completion-reporting loop so every handoff is handled AND verified. The durable 'brain' counterpart to real-time channels…
review-board
Run the multi-wave Software Engineering Review Board (SERB) over a proposed plan before execution. A read-only board of specialist agents gathers ground truth, critiques from architecture/testing/security/devops/quality lenses, then synthesizes a refined, executable plan with a go/no-go. Use for high-stakes or…
wshobson-agents
A large collection of engineering agents, plugins, and skills organized by stages of software development. It covers architecture, testing, debugging, security, and delivery collaboration.
code-simplifier
Post-session code review and cleanup against a working tree of changes. Analyzes git diff to simplify, consolidate, and align changed code with the existing codebase — modernize syntax, remove unnecessary complexity, consolidate duplicated logic, catch efficiency issues. Use after a substantive working session, or…