Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp/main/.github/skills/agentic-comment-format/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/linuxfoundation/lfx-mcpWrote 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/linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp/agentic-comment-format)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp/agentic-comment-format"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp/agentic-comment-format/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/linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp/agentic-comment-format"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp/agentic-comment-format.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 | $0.00077 | $0.01919 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00031 | $0.00768 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00384 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00192 |
Grade A, and why
agentic-comment-format 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 — 167 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Agentic verdict comment format
Both agentic roles publish exactly one verdict comment on the pull request, via the
add_issue_comment tool. Each comment is two things at once: a clear, useful message
for the engineer, and a machine-readable marker that a deterministic workflow step
(agentic-apply.yml) parses to set labels and the commit status.
The markers are load-bearing — keep them exactly as written here or the deterministic step stops working. The prose around them is yours to make genuinely good to read.
Shared rules:
- One comment per verdict. Never split it across comments.
- Markers are HTML comments (
<!-- ... -->) so they are invisible in the rendered view and never clutter what the engineer sees. The deterministic step greps for them. - Write for a busy engineer: lead with the outcome, be specific, point at the code, and do not pad.
Needs-human verdict (escalation judge)
Posted when the PR opens and again for each new head (the escalation re-runs per push; the label it drives is sticky and add-only). When a human must sign off before merge:
<!-- agentic:needs-human v1 -->
<!-- needs-human: yes -->
<!-- head: <full 40-char SHA of the head you judged> -->
<!-- base: <the PR's base branch name, as given in your task> -->
### Needs a human before merge
**Why:** <one specific sentence: what a lead needs to know about and why>
When no human sign-off is required:
<!-- agentic:needs-human v1 -->
<!-- needs-human: no -->
<!-- head: <full 40-char SHA of the head you judged> -->
<!-- base: <the PR's base branch name, as given in your task> -->
### No human sign-off required
<one specific sentence: what you checked and why this change is routine>
The <!-- needs-human: yes --> / <!-- needs-human: no --> line is the machine signal.
The deterministic step sets the sticky needs-human label when it is yes, and does
nothing when it is no. Do not set the label yourself, and write the marker exactly —
it is the only place the words needs-human: yes|no may appear in your comment.
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 · 167 lines · 77 tokens per session scan A 332e5119c509
agentic-comment-format is a skill published in the GitHub repository linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp (21 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 77 tokens to every session and 1,919 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-26.
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"…
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…
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…
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…