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 New1Direction/korgex --skill code-tourgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/New1Direction/korgexWrote 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/new1direction/korgex/code-tour)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/new1direction/korgex/code-tour"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/new1direction/korgex/code-tour/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/new1direction/korgex/code-tour"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/new1direction/korgex/code-tour.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 | $0.00053 | $0.01673 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00669 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00335 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00167 |
Grade A, and why
code-tour 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.
This is a copy
86% identical to code-tour — 42 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 — 237 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Tour
Create CodeTour .tour files for codebase walkthroughs that open directly to real files and line ranges. Tours live in .tours/ and are meant for the CodeTour format, not ad hoc Markdown notes.
A good tour is a narrative for a specific reader:
- what they are looking at
- why it matters
- what path they should follow next
Only create .tour JSON files. Do not modify source code as part of this skill.
When to Use
Use this skill when:
- the user asks for a code tour, onboarding tour, architecture walkthrough, or PR tour
- the user says "explain how X works" and wants a reusable guided artifact
- the user wants a ramp-up path for a new engineer or reviewer
- the task is better served by a guided sequence than a flat summary
Examples:
- onboarding a new maintainer
- architecture tour for one service or package
- PR-review walk-through anchored to changed files
- RCA tour showing the failure path
- security review tour of trust boundaries and key checks
When NOT to Use
| Instead of code-tour | Use |
|---|---|
| A one-off explanation in chat is enough | answer directly |
The user wants prose docs, not a .tour artifact |
documentation-lookup or repo docs editing |
| The task is implementation or refactoring | do the implementation work |
| The task is broad codebase onboarding without a tour artifact | codebase-onboarding |
Workflow
1. Discover
Explore the repo before writing anything:
- README and package/app entry points
- folder structure
- relevant config files
- the changed files if the tour is PR-focused
Do not start writing steps before you understand the shape of the code.
2. Infer the reader
Decide the persona and depth from the request.
| Request shape | Persona | Suggested depth |
|---|---|---|
| "onboarding", "new joiner" | new-joiner |
9-13 steps |
| "quick tour", "vibe check" | vibecoder |
5-8 steps |
| "architecture" | architect |
14-18 steps |
| "tour this PR" | pr-reviewer |
7-11 steps |
| "why did this break" | rca-investigator |
7-11 steps |
| "security review" | security-reviewer |
7-11 steps |
| "explain how this feature works" | feature-explainer |
7-11 steps |
| "debug this path" | bug-fixer |
7-11 steps |
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 · 237 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A 94253ce76b0a
code-tour is a skill published in the GitHub repository New1Direction/korgex (5 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 1,673 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to code-tour, differing in 42 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
vibe-security
A defensive security review workflow for code, dependencies, and application configuration. It checks for vulnerabilities such as unsafe input handling, unauthorized access, exposed sensitive data, and known problems in installed packages.
vibe-review
Use this skill to perform code reviews, checking for quality, security, and standard compliance.
gh-find-prs
Survey open Codewhale PRs and triage each for mergeability and disposition against the real landing branch.
review
Diff-scoped correctness review that reads the codebase around the change — callers, contracts, and invariants — and returns line-anchored findings ranked by severity with confidence, then a merge-risk verdict. Use for reviewing a PR, diff, or named change set. Not for style review, approvals-as-rubber-stamp, or…
simplify
Review recent code changes for reuse, code quality, and efficiency, then directly apply straightforward cleanup improvements. Use when the user wants a post-implementation cleanup pass, pre-PR polish, or asks to simplify/refine recent changes. Invoke with /simplify or /simplify .
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…