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 flutter-dart-code-reviewgit 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/flutter-dart-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gongyijie85/dsh-ecc/flutter-dart-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gongyijie85/dsh-ecc/flutter-dart-code-review/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/flutter-dart-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gongyijie85/dsh-ecc/flutter-dart-code-review.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 | $0.00072 | $0.05257 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.02629 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.01051 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00526 |
Grade A, and why
flutter-dart-code-review 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 5d 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
97% identical to flutter-dart-code-review — 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 — 437 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Flutter/Dart Code Review Best Practices
Comprehensive, library-agnostic checklist for reviewing Flutter/Dart applications. These principles apply regardless of which state management solution, routing library, or DI framework is used.
1. General Project Health
- Project follows consistent folder structure (feature-first or layer-first)
- Proper separation of concerns: UI, business logic, data layers
- No business logic in widgets; widgets are purely presentational
-
pubspec.yamlis clean — no unused dependencies, versions pinned appropriately -
analysis_options.yamlincludes a strict lint set with strict analyzer settings enabled - No
print()statements in production code — usedart:developerlog()or a logging package - Generated files (
.g.dart,.freezed.dart,.gr.dart) are up-to-date or in.gitignore - Platform-specific code isolated behind abstractions
2. Dart Language Pitfalls
- Implicit dynamic: Missing type annotations leading to
dynamic— enablestrict-casts,strict-inference,strict-raw-types - Null safety misuse: Excessive
!(bang operator) instead of proper null checks or Dart 3 pattern matching (if (value case var v?)) - Type promotion failures: Using
this.fieldwhere local variable promotion would work - Catching too broadly:
catch (e)withoutonclause; always specify exception types - Catching
Error:Errorsubtypes indicate bugs and should not be caught - Unused
async: Functions markedasyncthat neverawait— unnecessary overhead -
lateoveruse:lateused where nullable or constructor initialization would be safer; defers errors to runtime - String concatenation in loops: Use
StringBufferinstead of+for iterative string building - Mutable state in
constcontexts: Fields inconstconstructor classes should not be mutable - Ignoring
Futurereturn values: Useawaitor explicitly callunawaited()to signal intent -
varwherefinalworks: Preferfinalfor locals andconstfor compile-time constants - Relative imports: Use
package:imports for consistency - Mutable collections exposed: Public APIs should return unmodifiable views, not raw
List/Map - Missing Dart 3 pattern matching: Prefer switch expressions and
if-caseover verboseischecks and manual casting - Throwaway classes for multiple returns: Use Dart 3 records
(String, int)instead of single-use DTOs -
print()in production code: Usedart:developerlog()or the project's logging package;print()has no log levels and cannot be filtered
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 437 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A 5ceac13c9b99
flutter-dart-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository gongyijie85/dsh-ecc (6 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 5,257 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 97% identical to flutter-dart-code-review, 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.