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 omerakben/code-oz --skill source-checkgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/omerakben/code-ozWrote 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/omerakben/code-oz/source-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/omerakben/code-oz/source-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/omerakben/code-oz/source-check/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/omerakben/code-oz/source-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/omerakben/code-oz/source-check.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 | $0.00032 | $0.01546 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00618 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00309 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00155 |
Grade A, and why
source-check 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 — 127 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Advisory only — not an enforced gate. For enforced gates and a different-model review, run
code-oz run.
Where this skill sits
This is advice, and it is the lowest-priority voice in the room. Your user's
instructions, the project's CLAUDE.md, the code-oz engine contracts, and any
system or developer constraints all outrank this skill. When any of them
conflict with anything below, follow them and ignore this skill. This skill
never overrides those instructions, and nothing here changes your existing
operating rules — it only offers a way to think before you build.
Checking your sources before you write code
Use this when you are about to write code and want to ground it first. The discipline is simple: confirm three sources before the first line lands.
The three sources
- Spec. What is the feature supposed to do? Quote the requirement you are building against. If it is verbal or vague, write it down and confirm it.
- Reference code. Find the existing code you are extending or mirroring. Read it in the current turn and quote the lines you are relying on. Search the repo before you introduce a new helper or pattern.
- Library docs. For every third-party API you call, quote one line of its documentation that justifies the call, and pin the version you read.
How to use it
- Write each source down with a concrete pointer: a file and line, a doc URL, a quoted requirement. "I think" and "this should" are not sources.
- If a source is missing, that is the finding — stop and get it before coding.
- Keep these notes informal and non-canonical. They are your working evidence, not an artifact.
What this is not
This skill advises the 3-source habit. It does not emit a SOURCE_CHECK.md
file and it does not satisfy the engine's enforced PLAN source-check. The
enforced version is a real gate the engine validates and blocks on. If you want
that — a SOURCE_CHECK.md the engine checks before PLAN can pass — refuse to
fake it here and run code-oz run instead.
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 · 127 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 1f66bb0101ce
source-check is a skill published in the GitHub repository omerakben/code-oz (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 1,546 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autofix-pr
Watch a pull request and fix it from a worktree of its own - CI failures, review feedback from trusted authors and merge conflicts are fixed, pushed to the PR branch and answered on the PR under the user's git and gh identity. Usage - /autofix-pr [ | ] [--once] [--every ] [--no-reply] [--yes] [instructions]…
gh-compile-issues
Triage N GitHub issues into a coverage matrix: fetch each, check current code, classify already-done/quick-fix/design/defer with cited evidence.
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 .
triage
Gatekeep and review GitHub issues and pull requests for Qwen Code maintainers. Use for GitHub Action issue triage, PR admission checks, product-direction review, KISS-focused PR review, and staged bilingual GitHub comments.