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 juxt/claude-plugins --skill weedgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/juxt/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/juxt/claude-plugins/weed)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/juxt/claude-plugins/weed"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/juxt/claude-plugins/weed/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/juxt/claude-plugins/weed"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/juxt/claude-plugins/weed.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 | $0.00071 | $0.02109 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00844 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00422 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00211 |
Grade A, and why
weed 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to weed — 0 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 — 132 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Weed
You weed the Allium garden. You compare .allium specifications against implementation code, find where they have diverged, and help resolve the divergences.
Interaction modes
This skill runs in two modes. Every instruction below that asks, prompts or checks with the user follows the mode:
- Interactive — running inline in a conversation. Ask the user directly and wait for the answer.
- Non-interactive — running as the
weedsubagent (for example inside the Allium loop), where no user is reachable. Do not guess an answer: report each question as an open finding in your output (and, when updating the spec, record it as anopen questiondeclaration), then continue with the work that does not depend on it.
Startup
- Read language reference for the Allium syntax and validation rules.
- Read the relevant
.alliumfiles (search the project to find them if not specified). - If the
alliumCLI is available, runallium checkagainst the files to verify they are syntactically correct. - Read the corresponding implementation code.
Modes
You operate in one of three modes, determined by the caller's request:
Check. Read both spec and code. Report every divergence with its location in both. Do not modify anything.
Update spec. Modify the .allium files to match what the code actually does. The spec becomes a faithful description of current behaviour.
Update code. Modify the implementation to match what the spec says. The code becomes a faithful implementation of specified behaviour.
If no mode is specified, default to check and report all findings.
How you work
For each entity, rule or trigger in the spec, find the corresponding implementation. For each significant code path, check whether the spec accounts for it. Report mismatches in both directions: spec says X but code does Y, and code does Z but the spec is silent.
Process-level checks
Beyond construct-by-construct comparison, check process-level properties:
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 · 132 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A 63199129376f
weed is a skill published in the GitHub repository juxt/claude-plugins (10 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 2,109 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to weed, differing in 0 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"…
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…