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-security-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-security-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/existential-birds/beagle/elixir-security-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/elixir-security-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-security-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/elixir-security-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 | $0.00038 | $0.00718 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00287 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00144 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00072 |
Grade A, and why
elixir-security-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 — 65 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Elixir Security Review
Quick Reference
| Issue Type | Reference |
|---|---|
| Code.eval_string, binary_to_term | references/code-injection.md |
| String.to_atom dangers | references/atom-exhaustion.md |
| Config, environment variables | references/secrets.md |
| ETS visibility, process dictionary | references/process-exposure.md |
Review Checklist
Critical (Block Merge)
- No
Code.eval_string/1on user input - No
:erlang.binary_to_term/1without:safeon untrusted data - No
String.to_atom/1on external input - No hardcoded secrets in source code
Major
- ETS tables use appropriate access controls
- No sensitive data in process dictionary
- No dynamic module creation from user input
- Path traversal prevented in file operations
Configuration
- Secrets loaded from environment
- No secrets in config/*.exs committed to git
- Runtime config used for deployment secrets
Valid Patterns (Do NOT Flag)
- String.to_atom on compile-time constants - Atoms created at compile time are safe
- Code.eval_string in dev/test - May be needed for tooling
- ETS :public tables - Valid when intentionally shared
- binary_to_term with :safe - Explicitly safe option used
Context-Sensitive Rules
| Issue | Flag ONLY IF |
|---|---|
| String.to_atom | Input comes from external source (user, API, file) |
| binary_to_term | Data comes from untrusted source |
| ETS :public | Contains sensitive data |
Hard gates (before reporting)
Complete in order for each finding you intend to report. Do not advance until the pass condition is satisfied.
- Location artifact — The finding includes
[FILE:LINE](or a line range) that you copied from the current file contents; the path resolves in this repo. - Scope read — You read the full surrounding function or module section that contains the flagged code, not only a diff hunk or summary.
- External-data claim (only if the finding depends on “user/untrusted input”) — You can name one concrete ingress (for example
conn.params,Jason.decode!/1result, uploaded file path, message from another node) or you drop the finding because the value is compile-time, test-only, or internal per Context-Sensitive Rules. - Protocol — Pre-report steps in review-verification-protocol are satisfied for this item (no finding if they are not).
What ships with it
3 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 · 65 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A a2b56bd11274
elixir-security-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository existential-birds/beagle (82 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 718 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…