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 koolamusic/claudefiles --skill no-commentsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/koolamusic/claudefilesWrote 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/koolamusic/claudefiles/no-comments)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/koolamusic/claudefiles/no-comments"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/koolamusic/claudefiles/no-comments/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/koolamusic/claudefiles/no-comments"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/koolamusic/claudefiles/no-comments.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 | $0.00020 | $0.00573 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00229 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00115 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00057 |
Grade A, and why
no-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.
This is a copy
91% identical to no-comments — 2 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 — 25 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
No comments
Spawn Comment Sicko. Act on accepted findings.
Defer to Comment Sicko's fresh perspective.
Scope
Use the caller's files or diff. Otherwise use the current diff against the base branch, default main, including the working tree.
Steps
- Spawn an Agent tool subagent with
subagent_type: "pstack:comment-sicko". Pass the scope. Do not restate its rules. - Inspect its report and diff. Reject application-code edits, scope escapes, exception-protected deletions, misstated
MUST KILLreasons, and flags that treat kept intentional code as guilty. Reshape flags on our-code surprises stay actionable. Do not restore those comments. A keep survives only with proof it is about something we cannot change. Audit missed scoped lint and TypeScript suppressions. Correctness or safety suppressions stay actionableMUST KILLs. Restore deletions only with exact exceptions and scoped proof. Before accepting thinIMPORTANTordo not removekills or keeps, run/howor/whyon their symbol. If a kill is ambiguous, do not restore. If a keep is refuted or still ambiguous, delete it. Revert and rerun one rejected report with the failure named. Reject a second, report it open, and fail/no-comments. - Fix trivial accepted flags directly by deleting a dead path, dropping a parameter, or using the real API. If any fix needs a shape, run
/architectonce for the accepted set and surrounding code. Stop at the sketch. Architect shapes. Step 4 implements. - Implement the smallest root-cause fix in scope. Remove every named workaround. If the root cause is out of scope, land the smallest in-scope fix and report the rest open. The principle-fix-root-causes and principle-redesign-from-first-principles skills guide intent only. Neither authorizes widening the fence nor fixing instances outside it. Never bolt on symptom guards.
- Constraint comments say
do not remove,do not change wording, ortalk to X before changing. Leave keeps about things we cannot change. Offer the cheapest in-scope type, runtime, test, or CI lint. Wait for interactive approval. Unattended and eval require caller pre-approval. If approved, encode then delete. Otherwise delete, report the constraint open, and sketch out-of-scope work. - Report the deletion count, restored comments, reruns, architect sketch, fixes, encoding offers, encodings, unenforced constraints, and other open work.
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 · 25 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 13f19d0f0b2d
no-comments is a skill published in the GitHub repository koolamusic/claudefiles (130 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 573 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to no-comments, differing in 2 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…