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 elixir-docs-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/elixir-docs-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/existential-birds/beagle/elixir-docs-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/elixir-docs-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/elixir-docs-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/elixir-docs-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 | $0.00050 | $0.00908 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00363 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00182 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00091 |
Grade A, and why
elixir-docs-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 — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Elixir Documentation Review
Quick Reference
| Issue Type | Reference |
|---|---|
| @moduledoc, @doc quality, anti-patterns | references/doc-quality.md |
| @spec, @type, @typedoc coverage | references/spec-coverage.md |
Review Checklist
Module Documentation
- All public modules have @moduledoc
- First-line summary is concise (one line, used by tools as summary)
- @moduledoc includes ## Examples where appropriate
- @moduledoc false only on internal/implementation modules
Function Documentation
- All public functions have @doc
- All public functions have @spec
- @doc describes return values clearly
- Multi-clause functions documented before first clause
- Function head declared when arg names need clarification
Doctests
- Doctests present for pure, deterministic functions
- No doctests for side-effectful operations (DB, HTTP, etc.)
- Doctests actually run (module included in test file)
Cross-References
- Module references use backtick auto-linking (
MyModule) - Function refs use proper arity format (
function/2) - Type refs use t: prefix (
t:typename/0) - No plain-text references where auto-links are possible
Metadata
- @since annotations on new public API additions
- @deprecated with migration guidance where appropriate
Valid Patterns (Do NOT Flag)
- @doc false on callback implementations - Documented at behaviour level
- @doc false on protocol implementations - Protocol docs cover the intent
- Missing @spec on private functions - @spec optional for internals
- Short @moduledoc without ## Examples on simple utility modules - Not every module needs examples
- Using @impl true without separate @doc - Inherits documentation from behaviour
Context-Sensitive Rules
| Issue | Flag ONLY IF |
|---|---|
| Missing @moduledoc | Module is public AND not a protocol impl |
| Missing @spec | Function is public AND exported |
| Missing doctests | Function is pure AND deterministic |
| Generic @doc | Doc restates function name without adding value |
What ships with it
2 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 · 75 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A d9ff969b4730
elixir-docs-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository existential-birds/beagle (82 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 908 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
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"…
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…
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…
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…