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 EZotoff/ez-omo-config --skill atlas-review-handlergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/EZotoff/ez-omo-configWrote 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/ezotoff/ez-omo-config/atlas-review-handler)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ezotoff/ez-omo-config/atlas-review-handler"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ezotoff/ez-omo-config/atlas-review-handler/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/ezotoff/ez-omo-config/atlas-review-handler"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ezotoff/ez-omo-config/atlas-review-handler.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 | $0.00047 | $0.01648 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00824 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00330 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00165 |
Grade A, and why
atlas-review-handler 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 4d 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 — 153 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Atlas Review Handler — Review Workflow Orchestrator
CRITICAL RULES (LOOP PREVENTION)
- MAXIMUM 2 REVIEW CYCLES per original task. After 2 cycles, STOP and proceed regardless of findings.
- Fix tasks ([REVIEW-FIX]) do NOT trigger reviews. The REVIEW-ENFORCER plugin already skips
[REVIEW-FIX]markers — but YOU must also not spawn reviews for fix results. - Track your cycle count explicitly. Maintain a mental counter: "This is review cycle N of 2."
- If a review sub-agent runs build/test commands, that sub-agent is malfunctioning. The
review-protocolskill explicitly forbids build/test. If you see build output in review results, STOP the cycle — the review skill is not loaded properly. - NEVER nest reviews. A review of a review of a fix is an infinite loop. One review per cycle, maximum 2 cycles.
WORKFLOW
When REVIEW-ENFORCER fires (after a task completes):
Cycle 1:
Step 1: Delegate the review
task(
category="unspecified-low",
load_skills=["review-protocol"],
run_in_background=true,
description="Review [task-name] changes",
prompt="[REVIEW-TASK] Review the changes made by the previous task. Run git diff to see the changes, analyze them, and return structured findings in CRITICAL/WARNING/INFO format. DO NOT run builds or tests. DO NOT modify files.
IF the task produced or modified data artifacts (pipeline stages, generated datasets/corpora, model outputs, scored results): ALSO read the actual intermediate output files (at least 5 per stage) — raw values, not aggregates — and check for degenerate patterns: empty/whitespace outputs, zero-variance or all-perfect scores across conditions meant to differ, identical outputs across variants, duplicated template clauses, cardinality mismatches at stage boundaries. Report any degenerate pattern as CRITICAL; downstream stages silently mask upstream bugs.")
)
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.
- 4d ago Changed · +4 lines 6623d671c990
- 11d ago First seen · 149 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A 1df5c774ce48
atlas-review-handler is a skill published in the GitHub repository EZotoff/ez-omo-config (6 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 1,648 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
omc-review
Evaluate finished work for defects, risk, and simplification before it ships.
code-review
Use when reviewing code for bugs, security issues, performance problems, or adherence to best practices. Provides structured code review with severity levels and actionable feedback.
armada-ledger
Pick the right ledger for a finding. Use when writing defects, adversarial findings, or security findings. Triggers on: ledger, defect, adversarial, security finding, DEF-001, ADV-001, SEC-001.
armada-pr
PR-first finish for a feature lane. Use before reporting a feature done. Triggers on: PR, finish feature, gh pr create, merge, lane complete.
codex
Delegate coding tasks to the OpenAI Codex CLI for features, refactoring, PR reviews, and batch fixes. Requires the codex CLI and typically a git repository.
code-review-checklist
Code review guidelines covering code quality, security, and best practices.