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 gongyijie85/dsh-ecc --skill codehealth-mcpgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gongyijie85/dsh-eccWrote 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/gongyijie85/dsh-ecc/codehealth-mcp)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gongyijie85/dsh-ecc/codehealth-mcp"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gongyijie85/dsh-ecc/codehealth-mcp/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/gongyijie85/dsh-ecc/codehealth-mcp"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gongyijie85/dsh-ecc/codehealth-mcp.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 | $0.00055 | $0.01803 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00901 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00361 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00180 |
Grade A, and why
codehealth-mcp 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 10d 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 codehealth-mcp — 28 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 — 168 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Health MCP (CodeScene)
Structural maintainability feedback for AI-assisted coding. Complements style/lint skills (coding-standards, plankton-code-quality) with design-level health scores and regression gates.
Upstream: codescene-oss/codescene-mcp-server
Package: @codescene/codehealth-mcp (stdio via npx)
Security and boundaries
Opt-in (ECC): The codescene block in mcp-configs/mcp-servers.json is a template only. ECC plugin installs do not auto-enable bundled MCP servers. Copy the entry into your config only if you want it. You can exclude it during ECC install/sync with ECC_DISABLED_MCPS=codescene,....
Credentials: No bundled token. Set CS_ACCESS_TOKEN yourself (see getting-a-personal-access-token.md in the upstream repo). Never commit tokens to the repo.
What the tools read: When invoked, tools analyze files and git state in the local repository you point them at (paths you pass, plus branch context for analyze_change_set). They do not run by themselves. For standalone mode, follow upstream privacy docs: codescene-mcp-server README and CodeScene policies. Do not use this skill for secrets, credentials, or paths you do not want analyzed.
If the MCP is unavailable (offline, bad token, server crash): Do not invent Code Health scores. Tell the user the check was skipped. Continue only with explicit user approval. Prefer lint/tests/verification-loop for gating when MCP is down. Re-enable checks once the server connects.
When to Use
- User asks to review code quality, refactor a file, or check if AI changes degraded maintainability
- Before editing a hotspot, legacy module, or unfamiliar file
- Before commit or pull request when you need a maintainability safeguard
- After a large agent-written diff — verify Code Health did not regress
- Pair with
verification-loop,tdd-workflow, or/quality-gateas a structural check (not a replacement for tests/lint)
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 168 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A c5943c4c353b
codehealth-mcp is a skill published in the GitHub repository gongyijie85/dsh-ecc (7 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 1,803 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to codehealth-mcp, differing in 28 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
manage-taskboard
Manage work in the native DeepSeek Harness Taskboard with exact task ids and optimistic versions. Use when an Agent must inspect project work, claim an eligible todo, record progress or blockers, verify an implementation, submit it for human review, or release its own claim; also use when a human asks how to accept…
delivery-review
Adversarial self-review before delivery. Use once the implementation reaches green and before you declare the work done — assume the delivery fails its own spec, hunt for the strongest supportable objections, answer them, and re-review after fixes.
code2skill-review-source
A read-only review skill for checking whether a Code2Skill-generated result matches the source code it was authorized to use. It examines request handling, tool handoffs, transformations, authentication, and attachments.
code-review
A review of changes made after a specified commit, branch, tag, or merge point. It checks both the project's coding standards and whether the changes implement the original issue or specification.
improve-codebase-architecture
A codebase review that looks for places where a small module hides too little of its complexity and where the code is hard to understand or test. It produces an HTML report and then examines one selected improvement in depth.
code-review
A structured code-review workflow for examining one fixed code change. It checks correctness, security, tests, and maintainability in that order.