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-handler.tmpgit 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.tmp)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ezotoff/ez-omo-config/atlas-review-handler.tmp"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ezotoff/ez-omo-config/atlas-review-handler.tmp/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.tmp"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ezotoff/ez-omo-config/atlas-review-handler.tmp.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 | $0.01980 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00792 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00396 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00198 |
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 11d 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 atlas-review-handler — 0 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 — 161 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 — run CRITICAL CLOSEOUT (RULE/BLOCK/PARK) on every remaining CRITICAL finding. Never silently demote a CRITICAL finding to INFO.
- 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.
- 11d ago First seen · 161 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A 6d5b6be3fac4
atlas-review-handler is a skill published in the GitHub repository EZotoff/ez-omo-config (6 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 1,980 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to atlas-review-handler, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
harbor
Harbor intake for external work — the captain only handles unresolved decisions. Sweeps incoming issues and PRs, verifies every claim before disposition, reuses every decision already made, and hands the maintainer a docket whose pending items each carry one question with options, recommendation, impact and evidence.…
pr
Draft a PR body from OMC's paper trail — the smallest visual that proves the change, evidence consumed from the verify protocol (never re-collected), reversibility from the ADR test on the diff, glossary language throughout.
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.