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/docs-plus/docs.plus/code-reviewnpx skills add docs-plus/docs.plus --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/docs-plus/docs.plusWhat 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 | $0.00094 | $0.01506 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00047 | $0.00753 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00301 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00151 |
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 yesterday.
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
89% identical to code-review — 54 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 — 88 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 / 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 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.
- yesterday First seen · 88 lines · 94 tokens per session scan A 9cf46653dd9c
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository docs-plus/docs.plus (88 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 94 tokens to every session and 1,506 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to code-review, differing in 54 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
docx
Read, create, and convert Microsoft Word (.docx) documents — extract text and tables, build reports from markdown/JSON, and export to PDF.
document-converter
Convert Office documents (PPTX, DOCX, XLSX, PDF, HTML, CSV, JSON, XML, images) to Markdown using Microsoft MarkItDown. Provides the agent with conversion strategies for academic and research workflows.
docx-manipulation
Create, edit, and manipulate Word documents programmatically using python-docx.
add-format
End-to-end checklist for adding a new input or output format to AILANG Parse (docparse). Use when the user says 'add support for X format', 'wire up a new parser', 'add .foo format', 'add a parser for .bar', 'support .baz files', 'ship format X', 'can we parse .qux', 'new format rollout', or mentions a file extension…
landing-page
Create a new AILANG Parse documentation/landing page targeting a specific keyword or topic. Use when user says 'new landing page', 'new page for X', 'create a page about X', 'landing page for keyword X', or wants to add a documentation page to the docs/ site. Also use when the user references long-tail keywords, SEO…
benchmark
Run OfficeDocBench evaluation and refresh benchmark scores across the AILANG Parse website. Use when the user says 'run benchmarks', 'rerun the benchmark', 'refresh benchmark numbers', 'update bench scores', 'regenerate summary.json', mentions OfficeDocBench, asks to evaluate parsers, asks why scores are out of sync…