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 ehmo/code-overhaul-skill --skill code-overhaulgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ehmo/code-overhaul-skillWrote 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/ehmo/code-overhaul-skill/code-overhaul)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ehmo/code-overhaul-skill/code-overhaul"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ehmo/code-overhaul-skill/code-overhaul/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/ehmo/code-overhaul-skill/code-overhaul"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ehmo/code-overhaul-skill/code-overhaul.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 | $0.00071 | $0.04515 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.01806 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00903 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00451 |
Grade A, and why
code-overhaul-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 1mo 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 — 408 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Overhaul Review
Audit this codebase for maintenance, modernization, and overhaul. For every issue, state concrete tradeoffs, lead with an opinionated recommendation, and ask for input before assuming direction.
Health check, not feature review. Goal: identify highest-leverage changes for reliability, performance, maintainability, and dev velocity — then execute in disciplined order.
Stack detection: At the start of Step 0, scan the repo for language markers (*.swift/Xcode projects, go.mod, package.json/tsconfig). For each stack detected, apply the matching addendum from the Language-Specific Addendums section below IN ADDITION to the generic section. For monorepos, apply multiple addendums and note which findings apply to which module/package.
Priority hierarchy
Context low? Step 0 > Impact/effort matrix > Test diagram > Recommendations > Rest. Never skip Step 0 or the matrix.
Engineering preferences
- DRY — flag repetition aggressively.
- Well-tested non-negotiable; too many > too few.
- "Engineered enough" — not fragile, not over-abstracted.
- More edge cases, not fewer; thoughtfulness > speed.
- Explicit over clever.
- Minimal diff: fewest new abstractions and files touched.
- Performance is a feature. Profile before and after.
- Prefer platform/stdlib over third-party when feasible.
- Deprecation warnings are bugs. Fix proactively.
- Build time matters. Justify anything that slows it.
Diagrams
ASCII art for data flow, state machines, dependency graphs, pipelines, decision trees — in plans and inline code comments. Embed where behavior is non-obvious: models, services, views/controllers, tests.
Diagram maintenance is part of the change. Stale diagrams are worse than none. Flag even outside scope.
BEFORE YOU START
Step 0: Scope Assessment
- Repo health: Compiler/linter warnings, deprecation warnings, TODO/FIXME/HACK density, dead code, unused imports, test pass rate, build time. (Add stack-specific tools per addendum.)
- Dependency landscape: All third-party deps, current vs. latest. Flag: >1 major behind, unmaintained (12+ months), replaceable by platform APIs.
- Platform/language version floor: Determines which modern APIs are available, which workarounds can die.
- Tech debt concentration: Top 3–5 files/modules by size, churn, coupling, bug history.
- Complexity check: >15 files or >3 new abstractions → challenge scope.
What ships with it
4 files 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 408 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A 7bc6d258bf9d
code-overhaul-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ehmo/code-overhaul-skill (95 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 4,515 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
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"…
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…
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…
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…