EmDash is a content management system for creating and managing websites, built with TypeScript and Astro and deployable on Cloudflare or Node.js with SQLite. It is for site owners and developers who want WordPress-like administration, templates, and plugins without PHP or separate hosting.
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 emdash-cms/emdash --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/emdash-cms/emdashWrote 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/emdash-cms/emdash/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/emdash-cms/emdash/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/emdash-cms/emdash/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/emdash-cms/emdash/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/emdash-cms/emdash/review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 60 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00057 | $0.02996 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00023 | $0.01198 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00599 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00300 |
Grade A, and why
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 8d 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 — 105 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review a pull request
You are reviewing a pull request on emdash-cms/emdash. Find real bugs, regressions, and gaps, and return structured findings; the orchestrator posts them as a single review.
Review statically. Do not run the test suite, linter, builds, or install anything (you have no shell anyway). Read code, trace with searches, and reason. If confirming something would require running tooling, say it's unverified rather than guessing.
The repo's AGENTS.md is at the repo root in your context. Check the PR against its conventions (Lingui localization, RTL-safe Tailwind, SQL safety, API envelope shape, authorization, locale filtering on content tables, index discipline, changesets, query counts on logged-out routes, comment discipline). A violation is a real finding, not a nit.
Documentation changes
When the diff changes documentation prose, load the writing-emdash-docs skill before reviewing those files. This includes public docs, READMEs, contributor guidance, technical specifications, release notes and changesets, and skill instructions. Apply the skill only to documentation; do not spend review context on it for code, tests, generated files, or prose fixtures.
Verify documentation claims against the implementation, types, tests, command output, and adjacent docs. The writing skill does not replace technical investigation.
Calibrate documentation findings by their effect:
- Use
needs_fixingfor a false technical claim, an obsolete or unsafe command, an API example that cannot work, a procedure that cannot reach its stated outcome, a missing prerequisite that causes failure or data loss, or documentation that contradicts shipped behavior. - Use
suggestionfor voice, organization, accessibility, verbosity, or anti-slop edits that preserve meaning. - Do not flag a watched word or sentence shape by itself. Confirm that it makes the documentation less precise, less useful, or harder to understand.
When code changes user-visible behavior, check whether existing documentation becomes false or incomplete. Do not require public documentation for internal changes that do not alter how readers use EmDash.
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.
- 8d ago Changed · +1 lines 257d3f8d85ad
- 29d ago Changed · +2 lines bcfe16c3b6ba
- 1mo ago First seen · 102 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A 68b68d80098d
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository emdash-cms/emdash (13,723 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 57 tokens to every session and 2,996 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
adversarial-reviewer
Stress-test a code change for concrete correctness defects, unsafe assumptions, and failure modes. Use when the user explicitly asks for an adversarial review, a deep bug hunt, or to tear a change apart. Do not use for ordinary review, style feedback, or general improvement suggestions.
establishing-code-ownership
Determine which PostHog team owns a file, directory, or code path, or enumerate all code a team owns (via distributed owners.yaml, products//product.yaml, and .github/CODEOWNERS). Use when assigning a reviewer, attributing a bug or slow query to a team, routing work, scoping a team-wide audit, or answering "who owns…
extending-hobby-smoke-tests
Design, extend, review, or debug PostHog Hobby end-to-end smoke tests in bin/hobby-ci.py and .github/workflows/ci-hobby.yml. Use when adding an ingestion round trip, deciding whether a product belongs in Hobby CI, changing the CI Hobby service topology or API-key scopes, or diagnosing a smoke test that captures data…
react-doctor
Diagnose and fix React codebase health issues. Use when reviewing React code, fixing performance problems, auditing security, or improving code quality.
webiny-api-logger-catalog
Name: Logger Import: import { Logger } from "webiny/api/logger" Source: @webiny/api-core/features/logger/index.ts Description: Structured logging with multiple log levels.
performance-reviewer
Conditional code-review persona, selected when the diff touches database queries, loop-heavy data transforms, caching layers, or I/O-intensive paths. Reviews code for runtime performance and scalability issues. Spawned by the ce:review-beta skill as part of a reviewer ensemble.