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-tuigit 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-tui)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/existential-birds/beagle/review-tui"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/review-tui/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-tui"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/review-tui.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 | $0.00043 | $0.02143 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00857 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00429 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00214 |
Grade A, and why
review-tui 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- review-python — 89% identical, 171 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 244 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
TUI Code Review
Arguments
--parallel: Review each technology area concurrently if the agent supports it (see Step 6)- Path: Target directory (default: current working directory)
Gates (sequence)
Advance only when each pass condition is true (reduces scope drift and unsubstantiated blocking claims):
| Gate | Pass condition |
|---|---|
| G1 — Scope | Step 1 produced a concrete list of target .go paths (from the git command or an explicit user path). If the list is empty, you stopped for scope clarification or recorded an agreed non-git scope (e.g. single file/dir) before reviewing. |
| G2 — Skills before review | review-verification-protocol, go-code-review, and bubbletea-code-review are loaded; Step 4 conditionals (tests → go-testing-code-review, Wish → wish-ssh-code-review) are loaded before Step 5. |
| G3 — Evidence for Critical/Major | Each Critical/Major finding cites file path + line (or a short quoted snippet) from the opened source—not from diff hunks alone. |
| G4 — Pre-output hygiene | Each retained finding was checked against Step 7 and the loaded verification protocol before writing the Issues section. |
Do not start Step 5 until G2 passes. Do not publish Critical/Major until G3 and G4 pass.
Step 1: Identify Changed Files
git diff --name-only $(git merge-base HEAD main)..HEAD | grep -E '\.go$'
Step 2: Detect Technologies
# Detect BubbleTea (required for TUI review)
grep -r "charmbracelet/bubbletea" --include="*.go" -l | head -3
# Detect Lipgloss styling
grep -r "charmbracelet/lipgloss\|lipgloss\.Style" --include="*.go" -l | head -3
# Detect Bubbles components
grep -r "charmbracelet/bubbles\|list\.Model\|textinput\.Model\|viewport\.Model" --include="*.go" -l | head -3
# Detect Wish SSH server
grep -r "charmbracelet/wish\|ssh\.Session" --include="*.go" -l | head -3
# Check for test files
git diff --name-only $(git merge-base HEAD main)..HEAD | grep -E '_test\.go$'
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 · 244 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 3c70e3c2fd33
review-tui is a skill published in the GitHub repository existential-birds/beagle (82 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 2,143 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…