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 emaballarin/ccplugins --skill deslopgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/emaballarin/ccpluginsWrote 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/emaballarin/ccplugins/deslop)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/emaballarin/ccplugins/deslop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/emaballarin/ccplugins/deslop/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/emaballarin/ccplugins/deslop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/emaballarin/ccplugins/deslop.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 | $0.00050 | $0.00861 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00344 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00172 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00086 |
Grade A, and why
deslop 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 12d 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 — 73 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/ws:deslop — clean the diff before review
Clean only the change under review. Preserve behaviour absolutely.
1. Scope
Take the first that applies, and state it in one line before starting:
- What the operator named — a commit range, a branch, a set of files.
- On a branch other than the default (
origin/HEAD, elsemain): everything since the merge base,git diff $(git merge-base HEAD <default>). - Otherwise the uncommitted work:
git diff HEAD.
Add untracked files (git ls-files --others --exclude-standard) to cases 2
and 3 as wholly new hunks — git diff never shows them. Changed hunks are the
only targets. The lines around a hunk are the standard it is judged against; the
pass never runs repo-wide.
2. Checklist
Inspect every changed hunk for:
- Comment slop — comments a human maintainer would not write: narration of the next line, syntax explanation, prose that merely restates the code, history in comments ("now uses X instead of Y"). Docstrings and status comments on unfinished work are outside this item; the project's documentation conventions govern them.
- Defensive slop — checks,
try/exceptortry/catchblocks,Noneguards,getattr/hasattr/.get(key, default)on attributes and keys that always exist — abnormal for the surrounding module, or protecting only imagined states. Validation at a system boundary (user input, I/O, external APIs) and guards against silent data corruption are not slop. In numerical code this includes guards that mask an upstream fault instead of fixing it:nan_to_num, a clamp toeps, a broadexceptaround a step that produces NaNs. - Type laundering — casts that assert a type rather than establish it:
as any,as unknown as T,typing.cast(Any, …), widen-to-Any-then-narrow flows, and# type: ignore,# noqaor@ts-ignorewith no code and no reason. - Needless indirection — intermediate variables and one-use helpers that add no domain meaning, remove no duplication, and simplify no control flow.
- Unrequested fallbacks — compatibility shims, aliases, retries and fallback branches with no named contract that needs them and no plan to remove them.
- Style drift — naming, control flow, imports, formatting and idiom that conflict with the surrounding file.
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.
- 12d ago Changed 918fb22556ac
- 19d ago First seen · 73 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 680cc4f03f2a
deslop is a skill published in the GitHub repository emaballarin/ccplugins (4 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 861 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 2026-09-27.
Other skills, from other repositories
gemini
Cross-model second opinion from Google Gemini — a different AI reviewing the same changes, with deep Google ecosystem knowledge. Three modes: review (pass/fail gate for Google Ads campaigns, SEO metadata, or code), challenge (adversarial stress-test that tries to break your changes), and consult (open Q&A with Gemini…
critical-code-reviewer
Rigorously review code or pull requests for correctness, security, accessibility, maintainability, tests, and edge cases. Use when users request a critical code review, want a guided walkthrough of findings, need implementer-facing feedback, or want to prepare, create, or submit a GitHub pull request review.
audit
Project health audit and health check — architecture, performance, tests, dependencies, code quality. Use when assessing overall project health, before releases, or after refactors.
boundaries
Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls, validating dependencies, before splitting modules, or reviewing architecture.
triage
Triage review findings interactively — approve, skip, or prioritize each issue. Use after /phx:review to filter findings before fixing.
pr-threads-address
Address PR review feedback by systematically working through every unresolved PR review thread on the current branch's PR - analyze each comment, make the requested code changes (with tests where useful), commit, and optionally reply and resolve.