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 duc01226/EasyPlatform --skill changes-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/duc01226/EasyPlatformWrote 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/duc01226/easyplatform/changes-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/duc01226/easyplatform/changes-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/duc01226/easyplatform/changes-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/duc01226/easyplatform/changes-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/duc01226/easyplatform/changes-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 | $0.00058 | $0.07371 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00023 | $0.02948 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.01474 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00737 |
Grade A, and why
changes-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 309 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Codex compatibility note:
- Invoke
$skill-name: load the registered.agents/skills/<name>/SKILL.mdand execute it with Codex tools; no separateSkilltool or Claude mode switch is needed. Author.claude/**; mirrors are generated.- Track steps before execution and keep progress/evidence current. Explicit skill requests execute their protocol. Use the native question tool for required questions.
- Map foreign tool names to available host capabilities. A name mismatch needs no approval; an actually unavailable required capability stops with its step/evidence and a user question before adaptation.
- Subagent authorization: when a skill is user-invoked or AI-detected and its protocol requires subagents, that skill activation authorizes use of the required
spawn_agentsubagent(s) for that task.- Preserve protocol order unless the user approves a deviation. Workflows use
$start-workflow: gates stay fixed; other steps may flex with logged reasons and evidence.
Quick Summary
Goal: Find real defects in the requested diff and, when requested, converge its fixes without losing coverage or quality.
Summary: Triage every changed file and write a short plan → create review tasks, including domain entity quality and performance-test quality when those surfaces change → check connected behavior and applicable concerns → validate findings → report once or fix and freshly re-review. Choose review depth and delegation from risk and available context.
Workflow: Resolve scope → plan/tasks → review, with the whole-target $why-review rationale pass and a $performance-review pass when the change can affect performance → validate → review-only report or fix/re-review → final checks and recap.
Key Rules: Review-only is the standalone default; --fix-loop enables the shared three-round loop. --loop-owner=caller returns a read-only pass to its fixing coordinator. Use the carried review-policy protocol for completion and user-approved extensions.
Todo first: create tasks for triage, review, validation, fixes, fresh re-review and final checks before execution; keep one task in progress and attach evidence when completed.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 309 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A 9d56381f6798
changes-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository duc01226/EasyPlatform (12 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 7,371 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 2026-10-18.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…