Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/existential-birds/beaglenpx agentmods add skills/existential-birds/beagle/review-llm-artifactsWrote 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-llm-artifacts)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/existential-birds/beagle/review-llm-artifacts"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/review-llm-artifacts/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-llm-artifacts"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/review-llm-artifacts.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00101 | $0.03360 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00040 | $0.01344 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00672 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00336 |
Grade A, and why
review-llm-artifacts 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 2mo 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 — 296 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
LLM Artifacts Review
Detect common artifacts left behind by LLM coding agents: over-abstraction, dead code, DRY violations in tests, verbose comments, and defensive overkill.
Hard gates (sequence)
Advance only when each pass condition is objectively true (prevents “review complete” without artifacts):
| Gate | Pass condition |
|---|---|
| G1 — Scope | File list is non-empty or you exit with exactly the Step 1 message; scope is set to all or changed. |
| G2 — Four categories | Tests, dead code, abstraction, and style are each reviewed (four parallel subagent runs when supported, or four sequential passes covering the same categories). Stop if any category did not complete; do not write JSON or a summary that implies a full pass. |
| G3 — JSON before summary | .beagle/llm-artifacts-review.json exists and is valid JSON before Step 6 markdown. |
| G4 — Integrity | Step 7 checks pass before treating the run as complete. |
Arguments
Parse $ARGUMENTS for flags and optional path:
| Flag | Effect |
|---|---|
| (default) | Changed-files scope — only files changed since git merge-base HEAD main (PR-style scope) |
--all |
Full project scan — all matching source files under the target path |
--parallel |
Force parallel execution where subagents are supported (default when 4+ files in scope) |
| Path | Root directory to scan (default: current working directory) |
Step 1: Determine Scope
A. Changed files only (default):
Resolve the base ref explicitly and fail loudly if none exists — do not wrap the git merge-base call in || true, which would silently swallow a missing main/master ref and report "no files to scan" on repos that only have origin/main or use master. If no base ref is found, suggest the user pass --all instead of silently falling back.
BASE=$(for ref in main origin/main master origin/master; do
git rev-parse --verify "$ref" >/dev/null 2>&1 && { echo "$ref"; break; }
done)
if [ -z "$BASE" ]; then
echo "error: no main/master ref found (checked main, origin/main, master, origin/master). Pass --all for a full-project scan." >&2
exit 1
fi
MERGE_BASE=$(git merge-base HEAD "$BASE") || {
echo "error: git merge-base HEAD $BASE failed." >&2
exit 1
}
git diff --name-only "$MERGE_BASE..HEAD" | grep -E '\.(py|ts|tsx|js|jsx|go|rs|java|rb|swift|kt)$' || true
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 296 lines · 101 tokens per session scan A c4464c665162
review-llm-artifacts is a skill published in the GitHub repository existential-birds/beagle (85 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 101 tokens to every session and 3,360 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-changes
Workflow for any task that ends in code changes: issue analysis or triage, pull request review comments, features, bug fixes, refactors. Invoke at the start of such a task, before reading or writing code.
printing-press-output-review
Internal sub-skill: agentic review of a printed CLI's sampled command output for plausibility issues that rule-based checks can't encode (substring-match relevance, format bugs, silent source drops, ranking failures). Invoked via the Skill tool by the main printing-press skill at Phase 4.85 and printing-press-polish…
establishing-code-ownership
Determine which PostHog team owns a file, directory, or code path, or enumerate all code a team owns (via distributed owners.yaml, products//product.yaml, and .github/CODEOWNERS). Use when assigning a reviewer, attributing a bug or slow query to a team, routing work, scoping a team-wide audit, or answering "who owns…
extending-hobby-smoke-tests
Design, extend, review, or debug PostHog Hobby end-to-end smoke tests in bin/hobby-ci.py and .github/workflows/ci-hobby.yml. Use when adding an ingestion round trip, deciding whether a product belongs in Hobby CI, changing the CI Hobby service topology or API-key scopes, or diagnosing a smoke test that captures data…
react-doctor
Diagnose and fix React codebase health issues. Use when reviewing React code, fixing performance problems, auditing security, or improving code quality.
functions-development
Build serverless Go or Python functions for Falcon Foundry apps. TRIGGER when user asks to "create a function", "write a serverless function", "build backend logic", runs foundry functions create, or needs help with FDK handler patterns, function testing, or collection integration from functions. Also TRIGGER when…