Moltis is a persistent personal agent server written in Rust that runs on hardware controlled by its user. It provides an AI agent with sandboxed command execution, model-provider connections, memory, voice, scheduling, messaging integrations, browser automation, and MCP tools. Its catalogue add-ons extend the agent’s workflows and available tools.
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 moltis-org/moltis --skill requesting-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/moltis-org/moltisWrote 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/moltis-org/moltis/requesting-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/moltis-org/moltis/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/moltis-org/moltis/requesting-code-review/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/moltis-org/moltis/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/moltis-org/moltis/requesting-code-review.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 | $0.00046 | $0.02104 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.01052 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00421 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00210 |
Grade A, and why
requesting-code-review scanned grade A with 1 finding 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 7d 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.
Runs shell commandslowCapability
Expected in a hook, worth knowing in a rule or an instructions file.
os.system(f"ls {user_input}") This is a copy
80% identical to requesting-code-review — 23 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 — 280 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Pre-Commit Code Verification
Automated verification pipeline before code lands. Static scans, baseline-aware quality gates, an independent reviewer subagent, and an auto-fix loop.
Core principle: No agent should verify its own work. Fresh context finds what you miss.
When to Use
- After implementing a feature or bug fix, before
git commitorgit push - When user says "commit", "push", "ship", "done", "verify", or "review before merge"
- After completing a task with 2+ file edits in a git repo
- After each task in subagent-driven-development (the two-stage review)
Skip for: documentation-only changes, pure config tweaks, or when user says "skip verification".
This skill vs github-code-review: This skill verifies YOUR changes before committing.
github-code-review reviews OTHER people's PRs on GitHub with inline comments.
Step 1 — Get the diff
git diff --cached
If empty, try git diff then git diff HEAD~1 HEAD.
If git diff --cached is empty but git diff shows changes, tell the user to
git add <files> first. If still empty, run git status — nothing to verify.
If the diff exceeds 15,000 characters, split by file:
git diff --name-only
git diff HEAD -- specific_file.py
Step 2 — Static security scan
Scan added lines only. Any match is a security concern fed into Step 5.
# Hardcoded secrets
git diff --cached | grep "^+" | grep -iE "(api_key|secret|password|token|passwd)\s*=\s*['\"][^'\"]{6,}['\"]"
# Shell injection
git diff --cached | grep "^+" | grep -E "os\.system\(|subprocess.*shell=True"
# Dangerous eval/exec
git diff --cached | grep "^+" | grep -E "\beval\(|\bexec\("
# Unsafe deserialization
git diff --cached | grep "^+" | grep -E "pickle\.loads?\("
# SQL injection (string formatting in queries)
git diff --cached | grep "^+" | grep -E "execute\(f\"|\.format\(.*SELECT|\.format\(.*INSERT"
Step 3 — Baseline tests and linting
Detect the project language and run the appropriate tools. Capture the failure count BEFORE your changes as baseline_failures (stash changes, run, pop). Only NEW failures introduced by your changes block the commit.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 280 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A 223dfc1311a9
requesting-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository moltis-org/moltis (2,851 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 2,104 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (runs shell commands). It is 80% identical to requesting-code-review, differing in 23 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
openclaw-github-dedupe
Investigate a cluster of GitHub issues and PRs, determine canonical candidates, post duplicate/related status, preserve contributor credit, and execute cleanup actions. Supports autonomous mode for provided-link-only closeout, merge/fix follow-through, changelog, and post-merge issue/PR cleanup.
openclaw-pr-batch-sweep
Select, review, repair, validate, and land batches of up to 20 low-risk OpenClaw contributor pull requests using Vincent's maintainer preferences and bounded sub-agent lanes. Use for "next 20", broad contributor PR sweeps, merge-candidate mining, or continued PR-batch work where drafts, maintainer work, trivial…
docs-audit
Audit one section of the docs content against the code, and report what is wrong, stale, fragile, off-voice, or missing.
semantic-slicing
Build local semantic review slices by combining clawpatch feature maps, deepsec threat candidates, visual review maps, and optional gitcrawl/discrawl evidence for repos such as openclaw/openclaw.
technical-deslop
Remove AI-style noise from staged and branch diffs while preserving behavior and repository style.
go-code-review
Use when reviewing Go code or checking code against community style standards. Also use proactively before submitting a Go PR or when reviewing any Go code changes, even if the user doesn't explicitly request a style review. Does not cover language-specific syntax — delegates to specialized skills.