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 skills/chinkan/rustfox/code-reviewnpx skills add chinkan/RustFox --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/chinkan/RustFoxWhat 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 | $0.00096 | $0.01536 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00048 | $0.00768 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00307 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00154 |
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 2d 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
88% identical to code-review — 58 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 — 90 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Two-axis review of the diff between HEAD and a fixed point the user supplies:
- Standards — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
- Spec — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / PRD / spec?
Both axes run as parallel sub-agents so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.
The issue tracker should have been provided to you — run /setup-matt-pocock-skills if docs/agents/issue-tracker.md is missing.
Process
1. Pin the fixed point
Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, main, HEAD~5, etc. If they didn't specify one, ask for it.
Capture the diff command once: git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline.
Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (git rev-parse <fixed-point>) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here — not inside two parallel sub-agents.
2. Identify the spec source
Look for the originating spec, in this order:
- Issue references in the commit messages (
#123,Closes #45, GitLab!67, etc.) — fetch via the workflow indocs/agents/issue-tracker.md. - A path the user passed as an argument.
- A PRD/spec file under
docs/,specs/, or.scratch/matching the branch name or feature. - If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the Spec sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".
3. Identify the standards sources
Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as CODING_STANDARDS.md or CONTRIBUTING.md.
On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the smell baseline below — a fixed set of Fowler code smells (Refactoring, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it:
- The repo overrides. A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.
- Always a judgement call. Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation — and, like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 2d ago First seen · 90 lines · 96 tokens per session scan A 6a65cc61114f
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository chinkan/RustFox (6 stars, last pushed 26d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 96 tokens to every session and 1,536 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to code-review, differing in 58 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
agent-code-analyzer
Agent skill for code-analyzer - invoke with $agent-code-analyzer.
foundry-config-setup
Resolve missing setup caused by a hardcoded Foundry project endpoint or model in a sample. Use when a sample fails because it uses a placeholder/hardcoded projectendpoint (for example "https://your-project.services.ai.azure.com") or a hardcoded model instead of reading them from the environment.
evolve
Start or monitor an evolutionary development loop.
agile-product-owner
../../../product-team/agile-product-owner/skills/agile-product-owner/SKILL.md.
agent-memory
../../../engineering/agent-memory/skills/agent-memory/SKILL.md.
peekaboo
Capture and automate macOS UI with the Peekaboo CLI.