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 existential-birds/beagle --skill bubbletea-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/existential-birds/beagleWrote 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/existential-birds/beagle/bubbletea-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/existential-birds/beagle/bubbletea-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/bubbletea-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/existential-birds/beagle/bubbletea-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/bubbletea-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 | $0.00041 | $0.01420 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00568 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00284 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00142 |
Grade A, and why
bubbletea-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.
Copies of this mod
2 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- bubbletea-code-review — 86% identical, 10 lines differ
- bubbletea-code-review — 86% identical, 302 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 157 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
BubbleTea Code Review
Hard gates (sequence)
Advance only when each pass condition is objectively true (reduces false positives on tea.Cmd and unsubstantiated blocking claims):
| Gate | Pass condition |
|---|---|
| G1 — Anti–false-positive | You skimmed NOT Issues below or read references/elm-architecture.md before recording a finding about tea.Cmd returns, value receivers on Update, or nested child Update. |
| G2 — Evidence for blocking / suspicious I/O | Each Critical/Major finding names file path + line (or a short quoted snippet) showing the blocking call, huh.Form.Run in the wrong place, or other asserted anti-pattern—not a hypothetical. |
| G3 — Verification | Before publishing review output, you applied the review-verification-protocol to each proposed finding. |
Quick Reference
| Issue Type | Reference |
|---|---|
| Elm architecture, tea.Cmd as data | references/elm-architecture.md |
| Model state, message handling | references/model-update.md |
| View rendering, Lipgloss styling | references/view-styling.md |
| Component composition, Huh forms | references/composition.md |
| Bubbles components (list, table, etc.) | references/bubbles-components.md |
CRITICAL: Avoid False Positives
Read elm-architecture.md first! The most common review mistake is flagging correct patterns as bugs.
NOT Issues (Do NOT Flag These)
| Pattern | Why It's Correct |
|---|---|
return m, m.loadData() |
tea.Cmd is returned immediately; runtime executes async |
Value receiver on Update() |
Standard BubbleTea pattern; model returned by value |
Nested m.child, cmd = m.child.Update(msg) |
Normal component composition |
Helper functions returning tea.Cmd |
Creates command descriptor, no I/O in Update |
tea.Batch(cmd1, cmd2) |
Commands execute concurrently by runtime |
What ships with it
5 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 · 157 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 28df9a8d4d17
bubbletea-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository existential-birds/beagle (82 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 1,420 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 2026-09-16.
Other skills, from other repositories
no-bare-casts
Writing as in TypeScript or TSX production code, modifying a file that contains a bare as cast, silencing a type error with a cast, encountering as unknown as, or reviewing a cast site.
splitting-oversized-modules
Split an oversized Python module (a thousand-plus-line logic.py, models.py, api.py, or its test file) into a package of one module per concern, mechanically and provably without changing behavior. Use on a request to split / break up / decompose a god module or move functions out of one, once a human has agreed to…
splitting-oversized-modules
Split an oversized Python module (a thousand-plus-line logic.py, models.py, api.py, or its test file) into a package of one module per concern, mechanically and provably without changing behavior. Use on a request to split / break up / decompose a god module or move functions out of one, once a human has agreed to…
r-tidyverse-style
Use when the user asks to review or clean up R code for tidyverse style, standardize formatting or names, remove redundant comments or wrappers, or make a behavior-preserving style pass. Also use when writing substantial new R package code if the user requests tidyverse style or the package already follows it. Not for…
solid-principles
SOLID principles checklist with Java examples. Use when a class has too many responsibilities, an abstraction leaks, or a dependency points the wrong way, and when the user asks about Single Responsibility, Open/Closed, Liskov, Interface Segregation or Dependency Inversion. For naming, duplication and method length…
ring:auditing-dependency-security
Auditing a dependency for supply-chain risk before install (pip/npm/go/cargo): checks typosquatting, maintainer/age risk, vulnerability DBs (OSV, GHSA, Socket), and lockfile hash pinning, then emits a risk score and approve/conditional/escalate/block decision. Use when adding or updating a dependency, reviewing a…