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 gleanwork/claude-plugins --skill code-ownersgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gleanwork/claude-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/gleanwork/claude-plugins/code-owners)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gleanwork/claude-plugins/code-owners"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gleanwork/claude-plugins/code-owners/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/gleanwork/claude-plugins/code-owners"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gleanwork/claude-plugins/code-owners.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00050 | $0.00894 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00358 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00179 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00089 |
Grade A, and why
code-owners 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:
- code-owners — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 125 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Owners
Identify who owns, maintains, or has expertise in a specific code area.
Determine the component or codebase area from the user's request. If not specified, ask before proceeding.
Core Principles
- Multi-signal identification: Code + docs + org structure = complete picture
- Recency matters: Active maintainers are more useful than historical authors
- Be skeptical: Just having commits doesn't mean they're the right contact
- Quality over quantity: 2-3 right people beats 10 tangential names
Process
Phase 1: Find Recent Contributors
Search for who's been actively working on this code:
code_search "[component] owner:* updated:past_month"
code_search "[component] from:* updated:past_3_months"
Phase 2: Find Historical Authors
Look for original authors and significant contributors:
code_search "[component] owner:* after:2023-01-01"
Phase 3: Find Related Documentation Authors
People who wrote the docs often have deep knowledge:
search "[component] design doc OR architecture owner:*"
search "[component] RFC owner:*"
Phase 4: Cross-Reference with Org Info
Get current roles and contact info:
employee_search "[contributor names]"
Phase 5: Vet Each Candidate
For each person found, evaluate:
| Test | ✅ Active Owner | ⚠️ Consider | ❌ Reject |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Multiple commits in past 3 months, reviews PRs | Occasional activity, still relevant | Single commit, tangential involvement |
| Relevance | Same team, same area | Changed teams but retains context | Left company, completely different area |
| Knowledge | Wrote design docs, significant PRs, in CODEOWNERS | Regular contributor, knows the code | Minor commits, typo fixes |
| Contact | Owns the code, expects questions | Knowledgeable but busy/senior — suggest alternatives first | Would be surprised to be contacted |
Phase 6: Present Vetted Ownership Map
# Code Ownership: [Component]
## Vetting Summary
| Candidates Found | Active Owners | Historical | Rejected |
|------------------|---------------|------------|----------|
| [X] | [Y] | [Z] | [W] |
## Primary Contacts (Recommended)
### 1. [Name] — [Title]
**Confidence**: High
- **Why**: Most active contributor, [X] commits in past month
- **Good for**: Day-to-day questions, PR reviews
- **Last active**: [date]
- **Contact**: [email]
## Secondary Contacts
| Name | Role | Why Secondary | Contact |
|------|------|---------------|---------|
| [Name] | [Title] | Moved to [team] but retains context | [email] |
## Historical Contributors
| Name | Contribution | Current Role | Last Active |
|------|--------------|--------------|-------------|
| [Name] | Original author | Now on [team] | [date] |
## Team Ownership
- **Team**: [team name]
- **Manager**: [name]
- **Slack channel**: [channel] (may be faster than individual outreach)
## Rejected Candidates
| Name | Reason |
|------|--------|
| [Name] | Single commit — typo fix only |
| [Name] | Left company |
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 · 125 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 51bd760ceb2f
code-owners is a skill published in the GitHub repository gleanwork/claude-plugins (25 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 894 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 2026-08-30.
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…