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 DongDuong2001/pudo-code-system --skill pudo-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/DongDuong2001/pudo-code-systemWrote 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/dongduong2001/pudo-code-system/pudo-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dongduong2001/pudo-code-system/pudo-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dongduong2001/pudo-code-system/pudo-review/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/dongduong2001/pudo-code-system/pudo-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dongduong2001/pudo-code-system/pudo-review.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 | $0.00062 | $0.00254 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00102 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00051 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00025 |
Grade A, and why
pudo-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 3d 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.
What it actually says
PUDO Review
- Run
git diff(andgit diff --staged). Read every changed hunk and the callers of changed functions. - Run the project's tests and checks. Report the exact command and result. A failure is reported, never hidden.
- Call
pudo.runQualityGatewithdevelop, thenoptimize, when the PUDO MCP server is connected. - Reply with:
Verdict: ready / not ready (one line why)
Verified by: commands run and their result
Findings: numbered; each with file:line, the concrete failing case, the smallest fix
Scope creep: changes the request did not ask for
Remaining risks: what is untested or assumed
No finding without a concrete case ("this input leads to this wrong result"). No style taste.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 26 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A 175c90c5e7f7
pudo-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository DongDuong2001/pudo-code-system (5 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 254 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-10-24.
Other skills, from other repositories
remove-ai-slops
Removes AI-generated code smells from branch changes or an explicit file list behind regression tests. Use when the user asks to clean up, deslop, or remove AI-slop patterns from recent changes.
codex-ab
Run an A/B codex review experiment — holistic codex review vs 3 focused dimension passes (security, ecto, liveview) on the branch diff, classify findings, report a panel-value verdict. Use when the branch is fresh, before any codex review runs.
playwright-cli
Automates browser interactions for testing and validating your own web applications using playwright-cli. Use when you need terminal-first browser control for navigation, form filling, screenshots, tracing, bound browser sessions, debugging, or generating Playwright test code. Only use against applications you own or…
respond-review
Act on a reviewer agent's feedback systematically — categorize findings, apply fixes, verify tests still pass. Use after request-review returns a report, or when user wants to work through code review findings.
059-design-atdd
Use when reviewing whether an OpenSpec change's execution goal, acceptance criteria, and implementation or verification tasks are aligned. This should trigger for requests such as Review this OpenSpec change with ATDD; Check acceptance criteria against tasks; Find acceptance criteria without task coverage; Detect…
056-design-avoid-breaking-changes
Use when you need to review a plan, OpenSpec change, specification, or implementation proposal for breaking-change risk across commands, skills, generated outputs, XML sources, README/docs, tests, CI, APIs, schemas, configuration, data, migration, and release guidance. This should trigger for requests such as Review…