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 ckorhonen/swe-skills --skill ownership-risk-mapgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ckorhonen/swe-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/ckorhonen/swe-skills/ownership-risk-map)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ckorhonen/swe-skills/ownership-risk-map"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ckorhonen/swe-skills/ownership-risk-map/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/ckorhonen/swe-skills/ownership-risk-map"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ckorhonen/swe-skills/ownership-risk-map.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 | $0.00109 | $0.01271 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00055 | $0.00635 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00254 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00127 |
Grade A, and why
swe:ownership-risk-map 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 — 192 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
SWE Ownership Risk Map
What This Skill Does
Use this skill to identify where a repository is most exposed to ownership risk, not to build a people directory.
The goal is to produce a ranked map of surfaces that are likely to become fragile because of:
- concentrated commit ownership
- high churn with few distinct contributors
- unclear or missing CODEOWNERS coverage
- low test density near important code paths
- stale or orphaned modules, scripts, or configs
- recent turnover or repeated handoffs in the same surface
The output should be suitable for scheduled maintenance: short, repeatable, and easy to compare across runs.
When To Use
Use this skill when the user wants to:
- find the highest-risk ownership hotspots in a repo
- identify likely bus-factor problems before a change or release
- run a recurring maintenance pass over high-churn or low-ownership areas
- see which surfaces need better ownership, tests, or documentation
Do Not Use
Do not use this skill for:
- assigning people to teams or building an org chart
- generic repo orientation with no ownership-risk goal
- general bug hunting or refactor planning
- security audits that are not specifically about ownership risk
Inputs To Confirm
Confirm or infer:
- repository or package scope
- time window for the analysis, if any
- whether the user wants the whole repo or a selected folder/package
- whether CODEOWNERS or similar ownership metadata is available
- whether the user wants a report-only pass or a ranked maintenance backlog
If the scope is missing, infer the current repository root and use a recent history window, but say so explicitly.
What To Optimize For
- concrete repo evidence
- honest unknowns when ownership is unclear
- a short ranked list instead of a flat dump of names
- actions that reduce ownership risk without broad rewrites
- repeatable maintenance output that can be run on a schedule
Instructions
Step 1: Define The Scope
State the exact repo, package, folder, or service being reviewed.
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 · 192 lines · 109 tokens per session scan A 40eb55b9ac5e
swe:ownership-risk-map is a skill published in the GitHub repository ckorhonen/swe-skills (3 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 109 tokens to every session and 1,271 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
create-pull-request
Use when asked to create or update a PR, revise its description, or link issue references to its body. Not for multi-PR stacks: use gate-and-merge. Not for releases: use git-workflow-and-versioning.
gate-and-merge
Use when landing a queue of open PRs: gate each PR, sweep its review feedback to root cause, then merge, repair, hold, or close it. Human-only.
review-pr
Multi-agent PR review with four modes (review, re-review, self-review, address-feedback) - spawns parallel subagents, saves diff to /tmp for context efficiency, supports file exclusion patterns.
pr-review-canvas-html
Use when asked to render a GitHub PR as a standalone review HTML page. Fetches PR data via gh API, renders diffs with move detection, and serves the artifact on a local port. Not for Cursor Canvas output — use pr-review-canvas.
land-contribution
Use when a maintainer or collaborator explicitly asks to review and land one external pull request. Don't use for internal pull requests or landing without preserving contributor authorship.
resolve-pr-feedback
Use when handling GitHub PR review feedback: autonomous fix-and-resolve, interactive per-comment walkthrough, or read-only severity summary. Not for non-GitHub feedback: use resolve.