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 lexfrei/ccc --skill tldrprgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lexfrei/cccWrote 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/lexfrei/ccc/tldrpr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lexfrei/ccc/tldrpr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lexfrei/ccc/tldrpr/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/lexfrei/ccc/tldrpr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lexfrei/ccc/tldrpr.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00094 | $0.02721 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00038 | $0.01088 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00544 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00272 |
Grade A, and why
tldrpr 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 143 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Generate a plain-text TLDR summary of one or more Pull Requests for pasting into Slack. No markdown formatting — just plain text. Result is copied to clipboard by default; pass --no-copy to print the text only and leave the clipboard untouched (useful when another tool consumes the output).
Arguments
Parse $ARGUMENTS for:
- One or more PR references in any of these formats:
- Full URL:
https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/123 - Short ref:
owner/repo#123
- Full URL:
--lang <language>— language for the TLDR line (e.g.en,ru,de). If omitted, use the same language the user communicates in during this conversation.--no-copy— do not copy the result to the clipboard; print the text only. Default (flag absent) copies to clipboard as before.
If no PR references provided, look in the conversation context for recently mentioned PR URLs or refs.
For each PR
-
Fetch PR metadata, scope, and file list:
gh pr view <NUMBER> --repo <OWNER>/<REPO> --json title,body --jq '{title, body: .body[:2000]}' gh api "repos/<OWNER>/<REPO>/pulls/<NUMBER>" --jq '{additions, deletions, changed_files, commits}' gh api "repos/<OWNER>/<REPO>/pulls/<NUMBER>/files" --jq '.[] | "\(.status) +\(.additions)/-\(.deletions) \(.filename)"' -
Compute the scope line from the metadata:
+N/-M lines, K files, C commits(one space between fields, no rounding). -
Assign a review-effort rating from 1 to 5 stars (
★filled,☆empty — render as★★★☆☆). The rating is a judgment call informed by the file list and diff, NOT a pure mechanical line count. Use the heuristic below:Review-effort scale
- ★ trivial — docs-only, comments, version bump, single-line fix, generated-file regeneration. Reviewer needs ~5 minutes.
- ★★ small — localized bug fix, single-component change, mechanical refactor with no behavior change. Reviewer needs ~15 minutes.
- ★★★ medium — bounded feature or refactor in one component, multi-file but contained scope. Reviewer needs ~30-60 minutes.
- ★★★★ large — cross-cutting change touching multiple subsystems, non-trivial refactor, breaking-change candidate, OR security-sensitive (auth, RBAC, secrets, crypto). Reviewer needs 1-2 hours.
- ★★★★★ huge — architectural reshape, new subsystem, major API/contract change, runtime-critical (controllers, schedulers, storage paths). Reviewer needs ≥ 2 hours and may need follow-up sessions.
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 · 143 lines · 94 tokens per session scan A 5380130c1b3f
tldrpr is a skill published in the GitHub repository lexfrei/ccc (11 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed BSD-3-Clause. It adds 94 tokens to every session and 2,721 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-04.
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…