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-pythongit 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-python)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/existential-birds/beagle/review-python"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/review-python/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-python"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/review-python.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 | $0.00016 | $0.02318 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00927 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00464 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00232 |
Grade A, and why
review-python 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.
This is a copy
89% identical to review-tui — 171 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 243 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Backend Code Review
Hard gates (sequence)
Advance only when each pass condition is objectively satisfied (prevents linter-owned false positives and ungrounded findings):
| Gate | Pass condition |
|---|---|
| G1 — Diff scope | Step 1 command has been run; the changed .py paths are enumerated in writing (list may be empty — if empty, state that explicitly and do not invent Python findings). |
| G2 — Linters before manual style/type | For ruff and mypy: either no project config exists for that tool, or it was run on the changed files and you captured pass/fail (exit code or clear tool output). Do not add manual style or type findings for rules those tools already enforce when configured. |
| G3 — Protocol and base skills | The review-verification-protocol, python-code-review, and fastapi-code-review skills are loaded before Step 6 substantive review. |
| G4 — Evidence per issue | Step 7 checks are satisfied for each reported issue before it appears in the final list (re-read source, search references for “unused”, confirm framework handling for “missing”, verify syntax against current docs). |
| G5 — Output contract | Findings use sequential numbering, every issue has FILE:LINE, and the Verdict follows Step 8 (Critical/Major only block; Minor/Informational do not). |
Arguments
--parallel: If the agent supports subagents, run a specialized subagent per technology area (otherwise reviews run sequentially with identical output)- Path: Target directory (default: current working directory)
Step 1: Identify Changed Files
Pass (G1): Capture the command output (or equivalent) as your authoritative changed-.py set before Steps 2–3.
git diff --name-only $(git merge-base HEAD main)..HEAD | grep -E '\.py$'
Step 2: Verify Linter Status
CRITICAL: Run project linters BEFORE flagging any style or type issues. Pass (G2): You may only proceed to Step 3 after each configured linter has been run on the changed files or you have recorded why it was skipped (missing config).
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 · 243 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 92b80327fba2
review-python is a skill published in the GitHub repository existential-birds/beagle (82 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 2,318 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to review-tui, differing in 171 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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…