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 fprochazka/claude-code-plugins --skill postgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fprochazka/claude-code-pluginsWrote 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/fprochazka/claude-code-plugins/post)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fprochazka/claude-code-plugins/post"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fprochazka/claude-code-plugins/post/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/fprochazka/claude-code-plugins/post"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fprochazka/claude-code-plugins/post.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 | $0.00033 | $0.02706 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.01082 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00541 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00271 |
Grade C, and why
post scanned grade C with 1 finding 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 15d 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.
Hidden instructionshighPrompt injection
Directives inside HTML comments, invisible characters or bidirectional overrides are read by the model and not by the person reviewing the file.
- **A draft whose last line is exactly `<!-- code-review:post -->` or `<!-- code-review:watch -->`** is left over from an earlier run that never published. It goes out with this review. Delete it with `glab-discussion de How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 195 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Post Code Review to MR
Post the code-review report from this session to the current GitLab merge request as one review: inline diff comments (for findings anchored to specific file/line locations) written as GitLab draft notes, then published together with one summary note (for everything else plus the final verdict). The MR gets one notification, and nobody, human or watcher, sees a half-posted review.
This command only posts. It does not re-run the review and it does not re-analyze the diff. If no review report exists in this session, stop and tell the user to run /code-review:full first.
Phase 1 — Locate the report (in-session only)
The report must already exist in this session's conversation history, produced by an earlier /code-review:full run. Do NOT search the filesystem, do NOT re-derive findings from the diff, do NOT re-launch review agents.
- If you can see the report in the current session context → proceed.
- If you cannot → stop immediately and reply with:
No code-review report found in this session. Run
/code-review:fullfirst, then re-run/code-review:post.
Do not invent findings. Use only what the existing report says.
Phase 2 — Load tooling
Before making any GitLab calls, invoke the glab-discussion skill to load its usage guidance for MR diff comments, replies, and standalone discussions.
If the skill is unavailable, stop and tell the user.
Drafts need glab-discussion 0.5.0 or newer. If a glab-discussion call fails with an unknown command or flag, run glab-discussion drafts --help. If that fails too, stop and tell the user to upgrade with uv tool upgrade glab-discussion (0.5.0 or newer).
Phase 3 — Identify the target MR and its pending drafts
You should already know the MR from the /code-review:full context loaded earlier in this session. Use that MR. If the MR is ambiguous or missing, ask the user for the MR URL before posting anything.
Then run glab-discussion read and look for pending drafts: draft-<id>.txt files and [DRAFT] (draft:<id>) blocks inside thread files. GitLab shows a user only their own drafts, and the publish in Phase 7 publishes every one of them, so sort them before you write anything:
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.
- 15d ago Changed · +23 lines · +11 tokens per session 99ea947ca00e
- 1mo ago First seen · 172 lines · 22 tokens per session scan C f065094054df
post is a skill published in the GitHub repository fprochazka/claude-code-plugins (15 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 2,706 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it C with 1 finding (hidden instructions). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-12.
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…