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 dmae97/omk --skill no-commentsgit 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/skills/dmae97/omk/no-comments)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dmae97/omk/no-comments"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dmae97/omk/no-comments/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/dmae97/omk/no-comments"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dmae97/omk/no-comments.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 | $0.00022 | $0.00717 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00287 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00143 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00072 |
Grade A, and why
pstack-no-comments 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 today.
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 — 25 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
No comments
Spawn Comment Sicko. Act on accepted findings.
Defer to Comment Sicko's fresh perspective.
Scope
Use the caller's files or diff. Otherwise use the current diff against the base branch, default main, including the working tree.
Steps
- Spawn
subagentwithagent: "pstack-comment-sicko". Pass the scope. OMK subagents inherit the session model and effort; pass no model, effort, or speed fields. Do not restate its rules. If comment-sicko is not registered as a subagent, spawn a general subagent whose prompt isreferences/comment-sicko.mdverbatim, then the scope. If thesubagentextension is not loaded or the project is not trusted, run that prompt yourself in a fresh pass over the scope. - Inspect its report and diff. Reject application-code edits, scope escapes, exception-protected deletions, misstated
MUST KILLreasons, and flags that treat kept intentional code as guilty. Reshape flags on our-code surprises stay actionable. Do not restore those comments. A keep survives only with proof it is about something we cannot change. Audit missed scoped lint and TypeScript suppressions. Correctness or safety suppressions stay actionableMUST KILLs. Restore deletions only with exact exceptions and scoped proof. Before accepting thinIMPORTANTordo not removekills or keeps, run/skill:pstack-howor/skill:pstack-whyon their symbol. If a kill is ambiguous, do not restore. If a keep is refuted or still ambiguous, delete it, except aREVIEWkeep about an outside rule, which stays until someone checks that rule. Report it open. Revert and rerun one rejected report with the failure named. If you reject the rerun too, revert only its rejected findings, report them open, and go on with the accepted ones. - Fix trivial accepted flags directly by deleting a dead path, dropping a parameter, or using the real API. If any fix needs a shape, run
/skill:pstack-architectonce for the accepted set and surrounding code. Stop at the sketch. Architect shapes. Step 4 implements. - Implement the smallest root-cause fix in scope. Remove every named workaround. If the root cause is out of scope, land the smallest in-scope fix and report the rest open. The principle-fix-root-causes and principle-redesign-from-first-principles skills guide intent only. Neither authorizes widening the fence nor fixing instances outside it. Never bolt on symptom guards.
- Constraint comments say
do not remove,do not change wording, ortalk to X before changing. Leave keeps about things we cannot change. Offer the cheapest in-scope type, runtime, test, or CI lint. Wait for interactive approval. Unattended and eval require caller pre-approval. If approved, encode then delete. Otherwise delete, report the constraint open, and sketch out-of-scope work. - Report the deletion count, restored comments,
REVIEWkeeps, reruns, architect sketch, fixes, encoding offers, encodings, unenforced constraints, and other open work.
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.
- today Changed 75ccdf35fb4e
- yesterday First seen · 25 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 15f91067a838
pstack-no-comments is a skill published in the GitHub repository dmae97/omk (151 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 717 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 skills, from other repositories
review-harness
Use when reviewing implementation work that ran through a /tmp Pi task harness. Checks contract drift, unsafe shortcuts, validation evidence, and status honesty.
review
Review checkpoints in SyncPoint — create review requests, add checklists, submit evidence, approve or request changes. Use when reviewing another agent's work before it can proceed.
pr-review
Review Cool Workflow pull requests or branch diffs. Use when Codex must inspect code changes for bugs, regressions, FreeBSD/POLA violations, missing tests, generated artifact drift, release-contract risk, or CI implications, and return findings first with file/line citations.
autofix-pr
Watch a pull request and fix it from a worktree of its own - CI failures, review feedback from trusted authors and merge conflicts are fixed, pushed to the PR branch and answered on the PR under the user's git and gh identity. Usage - /autofix-pr [ | ] [--once] [--every ] [--no-reply] [--yes] [instructions]…
gh-find-prs
Survey open Codewhale PRs and triage each for mergeability and disposition against the real landing branch.
review
Diff-scoped correctness review that reads the codebase around the change — callers, contracts, and invariants — and returns line-anchored findings ranked by severity with confidence, then a merge-risk verdict. Use for reviewing a PR, diff, or named change set. Not for style review, approvals-as-rubber-stamp, or…