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 agentmods add skills/jl-cmd/claude-dev-env/commentsnpx skills add jl-cmd/claude-dev-env --skill commentsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jl-cmd/claude-dev-envWhat 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 | $0.00038 | $0.00549 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00275 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00110 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00055 |
Grade A, and why
comments 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 2d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 66 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Comment Guide
When to Use This Guide
Use this guide to draft a finding, refine its tone, reply to reviewer feedback, or resolve a comment thread. Use the review guide to decide whether a concern merits a finding.
Writing Useful Review Comments
Each comment names the affected behavior, the observed concern, the relevant evidence, and the expected outcome. Give the author enough context to choose an effective fix.
- Use
Requiredfor a change that materially affects the review judgment. - Use
Consider,Nit, orFYIfor improvement, polish, and context. - Explain the technical rationale when the connection from evidence to outcome needs context.
- Recognize strong decisions and completed fixes with the same specificity.
Respectful and Actionable Feedback
Treat every contributor as capable and acting in good faith. Keep feedback about the code, its behavior, and its effect on users or maintainers.
- Consolidate a disagreement into one focused exchange with the relevant context and reasoning.
- Use proportionate language that directs attention to the required change.
- Respect repository tooling and established formatting conventions.
- Close a thread when its outcome satisfies the applicable review judgment.
Responding to Feedback
Start with the substance of the feedback. Clarify the code, its tests, or its documentation when that gives future readers the needed context.
Ask for clarification when the requested outcome remains unclear. Reply with the trade-off, evidence, and proposed resolution when an alternative approach better serves the stated goal.
Resolving Pushback
Reassess a disputed finding against the repository rubric and the change's evidence. Keep advocating for a material improvement when the rationale remains sound, and accept an evidence-backed alternative that meets the same quality goal.
Escalate to a maintainer or lead when product direction or code ownership is needed. Record the resulting decision in the pull request thread.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 66 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A fb3a278397f6
comments is a skill published in the GitHub repository jl-cmd/claude-dev-env (6 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 549 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…
agent-host-chat-contributions
Build and review cross-cutting agent-host chat behavior through lifecycle contributions. Use when adding turn lifecycle side effects, prompt or context injection, restored-history transformation, protocol-action observation, or when reviewing changes that add code to AgentSideEffects or AgentService.
auto-perf-optimize
Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.