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 generative-computing/mellea-skills-compiler --skill sentry_find_bugs_melleagit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/generative-computing/mellea-skills-compilerWrote 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/generative-computing/mellea-skills-compiler/sentry_find_bugs_mellea)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/generative-computing/mellea-skills-compiler/sentry_find_bugs_mellea"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/generative-computing/mellea-skills-compiler/sentry_find_bugs_mellea/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/generative-computing/mellea-skills-compiler/sentry_find_bugs_mellea"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/generative-computing/mellea-skills-compiler/sentry_find_bugs_mellea.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 | $0.00040 | $0.00646 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00258 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00129 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
find-bugs 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 2mo 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
94% identical to find-bugs — 2 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 — 76 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Find Bugs
Review changes on this branch for bugs, security vulnerabilities, and code quality issues.
Phase 1: Complete Input Gathering
- Get the FULL diff:
git diff $(gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef --jq '.defaultBranchRef.name')...HEAD - If output is truncated, read each changed file individually until you have seen every changed line
- List all files modified in this branch before proceeding
Phase 2: Attack Surface Mapping
For each changed file, identify and list:
- All user inputs (request params, headers, body, URL components)
- All database queries
- All authentication/authorization checks
- All session/state operations
- All external calls
- All cryptographic operations
Phase 3: Security Checklist (check EVERY item for EVERY file)
- Injection: SQL, command, template, header injection
- XSS: All outputs in templates properly escaped?
- Authentication: Auth checks on all protected operations?
- Authorization/IDOR: Access control verified, not just auth?
- CSRF: State-changing operations protected?
- Race conditions: TOCTOU in any read-then-write patterns?
- Session: Fixation, expiration, secure flags?
- Cryptography: Secure random, proper algorithms, no secrets in logs?
- Information disclosure: Error messages, logs, timing attacks?
- DoS: Unbounded operations, missing rate limits, resource exhaustion?
- Business logic: Edge cases, state machine violations, numeric overflow?
Phase 4: Verification
For each potential issue:
- Check if it's already handled elsewhere in the changed code
- Search for existing tests covering the scenario
- Read surrounding context to verify the issue is real
Phase 5: Pre-Conclusion Audit
Before finalizing, you MUST:
- List every file you reviewed and confirm you read it completely
- List every checklist item and note whether you found issues or confirmed it's clean
- List any areas you could NOT fully verify and why
- Only then provide your final findings
What ships with it
36 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
- __init__.py 146 B runs code
- __main__.py 32 B runs code
- config.py 1.0 KB runs code
- constrained_slots.py 1.4 KB runs code
- dependencies.yaml 1.1 KB
- fixtures/__init__.py 1.0 KB runs code
- fixtures/clean_secure_parameterized.py 1.7 KB runs code
- fixtures/edge_comments_only.py 992 B runs code
- fixtures/edge_empty_diff.py 330 B runs code
- fixtures/mixed_partial_csrf_fix.py 1.9 KB runs code
- fixtures/positive_missing_authz.py 1.5 KB runs code
- fixtures/positive_sql_injection.py 1.4 KB runs code
- intermediate/_compile_settings.json 248 B
- intermediate/classification.json 763 B
- intermediate/config_emission.json 1.8 KB
- intermediate/coverage_report.json 302 B
- intermediate/dependency_plan.json 1.4 KB
- intermediate/element_mapping_amendments.json 1.6 KB
- intermediate/element_mapping_judgment_calls.json 755 B
- intermediate/element_mapping.json 16 KB
- intermediate/fixtures_emission.json 7.9 KB
- intermediate/inventory.json 15 KB
- intermediate/mellea_api_ref.json 5.1 KB
- intermediate/mellea_doc_index.json 4.0 KB
- intermediate/runtime_directive.json 149 B
- intermediate/step_7_report.json 680 B
- intermediate/step_7b_report.json 427 B
- main.py 2.3 KB runs code
- mapping_report.md 12 KB
- melleafy.json 2.0 KB
- pipeline.py 10 KB runs code
- README.md 4.4 KB
- requirements.py 1.3 KB runs code
- schemas.py 3.3 KB runs code
- SETUP.md 4.2 KB
- slots.py 846 B runs code
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 76 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 08664c3698f8
find-bugs is a skill published in the GitHub repository generative-computing/mellea-skills-compiler (53 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 646 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to find-bugs, differing in 2 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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"…
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…
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…