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 EthanYoQ/Skill-hub --skill dsh-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/EthanYoQ/Skill-hubWrote 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/ethanyoq/skill-hub/dsh-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ethanyoq/skill-hub/dsh-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ethanyoq/skill-hub/dsh-code-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/ethanyoq/skill-hub/dsh-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ethanyoq/skill-hub/dsh-code-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 | $0.00054 | $0.01648 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00659 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00330 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00165 |
Grade A, and why
dsh-code-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.
This is a copy
86% identical to dsh-code-review — 26 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 50 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewing a DeepSeek-Harness PR
This skill is guidance, not a complete checklist. Verify and fetch the PR's live base and exact head, then run pnpm --silent run change-scope --base <verified-base-ref> --head <verified-head-ref> before reading the diff and enough surrounding code to understand the design. The report identifies paths and dirty layers but does not replace semantic review. Re-establish the base and rerun it after a retarget or merge. Prioritize correctness, lifecycle, security, and broken required behavior over style; a short review with one substantiated blocker is better than a list of nits.
Sources of truth
- AGENTS.md and packages/AGENTS.md: standing repository and package authoring rules.
- docs/defensive-patterns.md: subprocess, callback, async-state, and disposal bug classes.
- docs/AGENTS.md: documentation placement and prose discipline.
- dsh-prose-standard: required coverage and editorial judgment for comments, docs, prompts, and visible strings.
- docs/testing.md and the quality-gates Agent Note: required test tiers and gates.
- Agent Notes: design rationale. Treat disagreement with an Agent Note as a design discussion, not an automatic veto.
- For bilingual changes, read translation-rules.md and terminology.md; the extended translation skill is outside automatic review and runs only on explicit user invocation.
Blocking requirements
- New prose receives semantic review. Use dsh-prose-standard to critically review every added or changed Markdown passage, JSDoc, comment, prompt, description, diagnostic, and visible string. Verify required coverage, accuracy, placement, and editorial quality against the owning code or behavior; automated checks do not establish those properties.
- Docs match the code. Config, defaults, errors, wire fields, events, and public behavior update the package README and JSDoc in the same diff. Comments state non-obvious contracts; flag implementation narration, test walkthroughs, review history, and duplicated rationale for deletion or a link to their one home.
- Core type docs match. Changes to spine or seam vocabulary update the appropriate subsystems page and any
type-equiventry. Internal types need no catalog entry. - Registrations clean up. Verify each new registry contribution passes the disposal tests required by packages/AGENTS.md.
- Invariant companions are semantic. For every touched
./invariant, require an owner event-stream or mutable-data relationship at the point where that package can observe it; service or method presence, plugin metadata or effects, and fixed pure examples belong in type, load, or unit tests. Accept an empty installer when its package-specific reason establishes that no plausible runtime relationship exists; do not demand an invented check merely to eliminate emptiness (repository rule; package invariant rules). - Required evidence exists. Verify the author ran the relevant local checks for the diff and that CI covers the exhaustive matrix; review the semantic gaps neither can detect.
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 · 50 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 59df05ce442f
dsh-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository EthanYoQ/Skill-hub (11 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 1,648 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to dsh-code-review, differing in 26 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
pr-description-generator
Generates comprehensive, structured PR descriptions from git diff or branch comparison. Includes summary, changelog, testing notes, and deployment considerations.
pr-review
Review Cool Workflow pull requests or branch diffs. Use when Codex must inspect code changes for bugs, regressions, FreeBSD/POLA violations, missing tests, generated artifact drift, release-contract risk, or CI implications, and return findings first with file/line citations.
golang-continuous-integration
Provides CI/CD pipeline configuration using GitHub Actions for Golang projects. Covers testing, linting, SAST, security scanning, code coverage, Dependabot, Renovate, GoReleaser, code review automation, and release pipelines. Use this whenever setting up CI for a Go project, configuring workflows, adding linters or…
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
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.
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.