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 review-elixirgit 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/review-elixir)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/existential-birds/beagle/review-elixir"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/review-elixir/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/review-elixir"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/review-elixir.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 | $0.00017 | $0.02158 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00863 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00432 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00216 |
Grade A, and why
review-elixir 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 — 242 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Elixir Code Review
Arguments
--parallel: If the agent supports subagents, dispatch one specialized subagent per technology area (otherwise reviews run sequentially with identical output)- Path: Target directory (default: current working directory)
Hard gates
Complete in order before writing Issues in the output (empty scope is allowed; fabricated findings are not).
- Scope gate: You have an explicit list of
.ex/.exs/.heexpaths under review (from Step 1 or user path). Pass: List printed or "No Elixir files in scope" — then stop with no Issues. - Linter gate (style): Step 2 commands ran for this Mix project; skipped tools are noted in one line (e.g. no
.credo.exs). Pass: You do not report a style issue that already passes the project's formatter/linter for that line. - Protocol gate: review-verification-protocol is loaded before Step 6. Pass: At least one reported finding was checked against that checklist (state which item in the Review Summary or first Critical/Major note).
- Evidence gate (Critical/Major): For each Critical or Major item, you re-read the file at
FILE:LINE(full surrounding context, not only the diff hunk). Pass: The Issue description matches observable code at that location.
Step 1: Identify Changed Files
git diff --name-only $(git merge-base HEAD main)..HEAD | grep -E '\.ex$|\.exs$|\.heex$'
Step 2: Verify Linter/Formatter Status
CRITICAL: Run project linters BEFORE flagging any style issues.
# Check formatting
mix format --check-formatted
# Check Credo if present
if [ -f ".credo.exs" ] || grep -q ":credo" mix.exs 2>/dev/null; then
mix credo --strict
fi
# Check Dialyzer if configured
if grep -q ":dialyxir" mix.exs 2>/dev/null; then
mix dialyzer --format short
fi
Rules:
- If a linter passes for a specific rule, DO NOT flag that issue manually
- Linter configuration is authoritative for style rules
- Only flag issues that linters cannot detect (semantic issues, architectural problems)
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 · 242 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A f1a1609f17c5
review-elixir is a skill published in the GitHub repository existential-birds/beagle (82 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 2,158 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
platform-apex-generate
Primary Apex authoring skill for class generation, refactoring, and review. ALWAYS ACTIVATE when the user mentions Apex, .cls, triggers, or asks to create/refactor a class (service, selector, domain, batch, queueable, schedulable, invocable, DTO, utility, interface, abstract, exception, REST resource). Use this skill…
flow-next-impl-review
Carmack-level implementation review of changes via the configured backend. Use when asked to review code or a diff in a flow-next repo.
flow-next-resolve-pr
Resolve PR review feedback. Fetches unresolved threads, triages, fixes, replies and resolves via GraphQL. Use when asked to address review comments.
api-contract-review
Use when auditing CloudBase cloud API wrappers, MCP tools, generated action metadata, or related docs for outdated or incorrect action names, parameters, casing, request shapes, or missing contract tests, especially during periodic quality review or before preparing corrective PRs.
ring:migrating-to-lib-observability
Migrating a Lerian Go app off lib-commons observability imports (deprecated shims or removed APIs) to lib-observability via a fixed mapping table, then bumps go.mod and validates the build; ring:backend-go applies the edits. Covers log/zap/runtime/assert, opentelemetry/tracing, HTTP middleware, context helpers, and…
ring:mapping-streaming-events
Mapping the eventable points in a Lerian Go service where lib-streaming should emit past-tense, durable, tenant-scoped business events, producing a PM-validated event catalog and instrumentation-map.json for ring:instrumenting-streaming-events. Three-pass discovery (Survey, Slice, Mark) with a scope fence and delivery…