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 miniidealab/openlogos --skill code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/miniidealab/openlogosWrote 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/miniidealab/openlogos/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/miniidealab/openlogos/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/miniidealab/openlogos/code-reviewer/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/miniidealab/openlogos/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/miniidealab/openlogos/code-reviewer.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 | $0.00000 | $0.02610 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.01044 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00522 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00261 |
Grade A, and why
code-reviewer 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 — 210 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Skill: Code Reviewer
审查 AI 生成的代码，基于 OpenLogos 全链路规格（API YAML、时序图 EX 用例、DB DDL）进行系统性校验，确保代码与设计文档完全一致，覆盖所有异常路径，满足安全要求。
触发条件
- 用户要求审查代码或 Code Review
- 用户提到 "Phase 3 Step 4"、"代码审核"、"代码审查"
- AI 刚生成了一段代码，需要验证其质量
- 部署前的最终检查
- 编排测试失败后需要定位代码问题
前置依赖
logos/resources/api/中包含 API YAML 规格logos/resources/prd/3-technical-plan/2-scenario-implementation/中包含场景时序图（含 EX 用例）logos/resources/database/中包含 DB DDL- 待审查的代码已可读取
无 API 的项目（纯 CLI / 库）可省略 API 一致性检查，聚焦时序图覆盖和异常处理。
核心能力
- 校验代码实现与 API YAML 规格的一致性
- 检查异常处理是否覆盖所有 EX 用例
- 检查 DB 操作是否符合 DDL 设计
- 检查安全策略（认证、RLS、输入校验）
- 检查代码风格和最佳实践
- 输出结构化的审查报告
执行步骤
Step 1: 加载规格上下文
前置检查 — YAML 有效性（优先于一切）：
在加载 API 规格之前，先验证所有 logos/resources/api/*.yaml 文件是否为有效 YAML 且符合 OpenAPI 3.x 规范。如果任何文件解析失败（例如 description 字段中特殊字符未加引号），立即报告为 Critical 阻塞项——在 YAML 错误修复前不进行后续审查。
然后读取以下文件，建立代码审查的"参照基准"：
- API YAML（
logos/resources/api/*.yaml）：提取端点清单，记录每个端点的路径、方法、请求体 schema、响应 schema、状态码 - 场景时序图（
logos/resources/prd/3-technical-plan/2-scenario-implementation/）：提取所有 EX 异常用例编号和预期行为 - DB DDL（
logos/resources/database/）：提取表结构、字段类型、约束、索引 logos-project.yaml：读取tech_stack确认技术栈，external_dependencies确认外部依赖
汇总为审查检查清单：
审查范围：S01 相关代码
- API 端点：4 个（auth.yaml）
- EX 异常用例：7 个（EX-2.1 ~ EX-5.2）
- DB 表：2 张（users, profiles）
- 安全策略：RLS 2 条
Step 2: API 一致性审查
逐个端点对比代码实现与 API YAML 规格：
检查项：
| 检查项 | 说明 | 严重程度 |
|---|---|---|
| 路径匹配 | 代码中的路由路径是否与 YAML 中的 paths 完全一致 |
Critical |
| HTTP 方法 | GET/POST/PUT/DELETE 是否匹配 | Critical |
| 请求体字段 | 代码是否读取了 YAML 中 requestBody.schema 定义的所有 required 字段 |
Critical |
| 请求体校验 | 字段类型、format（email/uuid）、minLength 等约束是否在代码中有校验 | Warning |
| 响应字段 | 代码返回的 JSON 字段名和类型是否与 YAML 中 responses.schema 一致 |
Critical |
| 状态码 | 正常和异常情况下返回的 HTTP 状态码是否与 YAML 定义一致 | Critical |
| 错误响应格式 | 错误响应是否遵循 { code, message, details? } 统一格式 |
Warning |
| YAML 有效性 | logos/resources/api/*.yaml 所有文件是否为有效 YAML 且符合 OpenAPI 3.x 规范——description/summary 值中未加引号的特殊字符（:、→、#）是常见故障点 |
Critical |
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 · 210 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A f5015501ed38
code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository miniidealab/openlogos (322 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,610 tokens. 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
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…