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 agentmods add skills/longngn204/local-coding-agent/code-reviewnpx skills add LongNgn204/local-coding-agent --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/LongNgn204/local-coding-agentWhat 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 | $0.00023 | $0.00254 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00127 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00051 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00025 |
Grade A, and why
code-review 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.
The source is not reproduced here
Licensed AGPL-3.0
The repository is licensed AGPL-3.0, which this catalogue does not treat as permission to reproduce the file. Read it at the source.
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 · 33 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 0853ff4385b8
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository LongNgn204/local-coding-agent (50 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed AGPL-3.0. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 254 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
codex-multi-profile
Windows Codex Desktop multi-account picker (Codex Accounts app) plus AuthSwap launchers (codex1, codex2, ...). Humans pick accounts in Show-CodexAccountApp.ps1. Agents use pool / stick / route / depleted. ShareLive keeps history in /.codex; only auth.json is per-profile. Launch MUST set env vars through a cmd wrapper.…
rel-ai-workflow
Use when work must inspect, read, edit, test, build, debug, validate, review, or publish a configured repository through Rel.AI, including local UI or process execution. Do not use when the request needs no repository or local runtime access.
rel-ai-debugging
Use when repository behavior is reproducibly wrong and needs causal diagnosis or repair, including errors, broken tests, crashes, regressions, failed contracts, or incorrect runtime behavior. Do not use for general audits or final verification when no active defect is being diagnosed.
rel-ai-dev-process
Use only when repository work requires a persistent development server, file watcher, long-lived preview, or interactive CLI that must stay alive across later steps. Do not use for one-shot tests, builds, linters, migrations, checks, diagnostics, or release gates.
rel-ai-planning
Use for non-trivial repository features, refactors, migrations, or multi-stage changes where architecture, sequencing, dependencies, or durable task tracking must be decided before implementation. Do not use for small localized changes with an already-clear implementation path.
rel-ai-verification
Use after repository changes, fixes, or release work when the task needs proof of completion, including targeted regression checks, final verification, release readiness, completion audits, or confirmation that implemented behavior works. Do not use for open-ended architecture or feasibility investigation before…