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 chiruu12/OSS-Skills --skill oss-find-real-issuesgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/chiruu12/OSS-SkillsWrote 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/chiruu12/oss-skills/oss-find-real-issues)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/chiruu12/oss-skills/oss-find-real-issues"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/chiruu12/oss-skills/oss-find-real-issues/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/chiruu12/oss-skills/oss-find-real-issues"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/chiruu12/oss-skills/oss-find-real-issues.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 337 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00080 | $0.03988 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00040 | $0.01994 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00798 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00399 |
Grade A, and why
oss-find-real-issues 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 11d 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 — 342 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Find Real Issues
Don't wait for someone to file an issue. find real problems in the code. This skill analyzes a codebase for actual issues that maintainers would appreciate being fixed: missing tests, inconsistent patterns, silent failures, documentation gaps. You evaluate whether they're worth filing. the LLM just finds them.
Purpose
The best contributions aren't always in the issue tracker. Experienced contributors earn maintainer trust by finding and fixing problems nobody asked about. but that everyone benefits from. This skill teaches you to read code critically, spot patterns that are off, and evaluate whether a fix would be welcome.
Prerequisites
- A repo cloned locally
- Basic understanding of the codebase (from
oss-prep-to-contributeor your own exploration) - Check that the repo accepts unsolicited PRs (some don't. verify in CONTRIBUTING.md)
Process
1. Check if unsolicited contributions are welcome
Before analyzing anything:
# Read contribution guidelines
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/contents/CONTRIBUTING.md --jq '.content' | base64 -d 2>/dev/null
# Check if unsolicited PRs have been merged before
gh pr list -R {owner}/{repo} --state merged --limit 20 \
--json title,labels,authorAssociation | \
jq '[.[] | select(.authorAssociation != "MEMBER" and .authorAssociation != "OWNER")]'
Look for:
- "Please file an issue before submitting a PR": if present, you should file an issue first, not just submit a fix
- "We welcome contributions": green light
- No external PRs merged. yellow flag, ask in their communication channel first
Inform the user about the repo's stance on unsolicited contributions.
2. Systematic code analysis
Use Explore agents to analyze the codebase across multiple dimensions. For each dimension, look for concrete, specific problems. not vague "could be better" observations.
Dimension 1: Test coverage gaps
# Find source files without corresponding test files
find src/ lib/ -name "*.{ts,py,go,rs}" | while read f; do
test_file=$(echo "$f" | sed 's/src/test/' | sed 's/\.ts/.test.ts/' | sed 's/\.py/test_&/')
[ ! -f "$test_file" ] && echo "No test: $f"
done
# Find exported functions that aren't tested
# {language-specific analysis}
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 342 lines · 80 tokens per session scan A 7afe5fa05e0a
oss-find-real-issues is a skill published in the GitHub repository chiruu12/OSS-Skills (62 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 80 tokens to every session and 3,988 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 skills, from other repositories
code-changes
Orchestration workflow for any task that ends in code changes: issue analysis, pull request review, feature implementation, bug fixes, refactors, or fleshing out an idea. MUST be invoked at the start of such a task, before reading or writing any code. Defines how to analyze first, gate on user approval, plan, pick the…
audit
Project health audit and health check — architecture, performance, tests, dependencies, code quality. Use when assessing overall project health, before releases, or after refactors.
adjudicate-review
Turn an incoming set of findings — from an AI reviewer, a referee report, a code review, a linter, or a second model — into verified fixes, without letting a confident misread damage correct work. Every finding is a CANDIDATE until checked against the actual source. Use whenever you receive review comments, audit…
ln-22-codebase-auditor
Audits cross-cutting code health, security, delivery, and maintainability when no specialist audit is primary. Not for a single delivery review.
skeptical-triage
Reusable 3-round self-challenge + arbiter pattern for filtering false positives from findings/verdicts. Use when the cost of a false-positive gate block exceeds the cost of 4 extra LLM turns.
anti-patterns
Catalogue of known SDLC anti-patterns that greatcto agents must actively reject when reviewing architecture, plans, code, or post-mortems. Used by architect (pre-impl), pm (planning), senior-dev (impl), l3-support (post-incident).