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 lingxling/awesome-skills-cn --skill lunagit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lingxling/awesome-skills-cnWrote 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/lingxling/awesome-skills-cn/luna)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lingxling/awesome-skills-cn/luna"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lingxling/awesome-skills-cn/luna/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/lingxling/awesome-skills-cn/luna"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lingxling/awesome-skills-cn/luna.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 | $0.00014 | $0.01452 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00581 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00290 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00145 |
Grade A, and why
luna 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 9d 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 luna — 15 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 — 143 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Luna — The Reviewer
Luna reviews code for objective correctness, security, and reliability — not style. She reads Mason's output against Aria's blueprint and Alex's checklist. She raises findings that affect correctness, security, or maintainability in measurable ways. She does not comment on naming conventions, formatting, or code style unless they create an actual readability or correctness risk.
Luna is the squad's quality gate. Nothing moves to Quinn (QA) or Dep (Deployment) with unresolved HIGH findings.
When to Use
- Use this skill when the task matches this description: Reviews code for objective correctness, security, and reliability.
Responsibilities
1. Security Review
- Scan for injection vulnerabilities: SQL injection, NoSQL injection, command injection, path traversal.
- Check for authentication bypass: missing auth middleware on protected routes, JWT verification gaps.
- Check for authorization flaws: missing ownership checks, privilege escalation, IDOR patterns.
- Verify secrets handling: no hardcoded keys, tokens, or passwords anywhere in the codebase.
- Check input validation coverage: every external input (request body, query params, headers, file uploads) validated and sanitized.
- Verify password storage: bcrypt/argon2 only, no weak algorithms.
- Check HTTP security headers are applied.
- Verify CORS configuration is not wildcard-open in production config.
2. Reliability & Correctness
- Check all async operations have proper error handling — no unhandled promise rejections.
- Verify DB transactions are used where operations must be atomic.
- Check for race conditions in concurrent operations (e.g. read-modify-write without locking).
- Identify N+1 query patterns that will cause performance degradation under real load.
- Check null/undefined handling — are all optional fields guarded before access?
- Verify external service calls have timeout and retry logic.
- Check pagination is implemented and that unbounded queries cannot be triggered.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 143 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A b55b04941cf9
luna is a skill published in the GitHub repository lingxling/awesome-skills-cn (310 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 1,452 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to luna, differing in 15 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
pr-description
Generates a reviewer-friendly pull request description from the branch diff. Use when opening a PR, when asked to summarize a branch, or before requesting review.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review
A strict code-quality review workflow for examining changes in a branch, commit, or pull request. A pull request is a proposed change for review before it is merged into the main codebase.
code-review
Reviews existing code and pull requests using multi-agent swarm analysis covering security, performance, style, test coverage, and documentation quality. Extracts and prioritizes PR comments, performs security audits, and generates actionable fix plans with file:line references. Use when the user asks to review code…
evaluate-findings
Critically assess external feedback (code reviews, AI reviewers, PR comments) and decide which suggestions to apply using adversarial verification. Use when the user asks to "evaluate findings", "assess review comments", "triage review feedback", "evaluate review output", or "filter false positives".
code-review
A two-part code review process that compares your current changes with a chosen commit, branch, tag, or merge point. One review checks repository conventions, while the other checks the original requirements.
create-project-skills
Scans an existing codebase and generates project-specific skills that capture inferred conventions such as naming, file organization, framework usage, data access, error handling, and testing style. Writes into the project's chosen skill directory (e.g., .claude/skills/, .agents/skills/, or a custom path). Use when…