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 Oreo-Mcflurry/claude-gate --skill gate-codegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Oreo-Mcflurry/claude-gateWrote 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/oreo-mcflurry/claude-gate/gate-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/oreo-mcflurry/claude-gate/gate-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oreo-mcflurry/claude-gate/gate-code/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/oreo-mcflurry/claude-gate/gate-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oreo-mcflurry/claude-gate/gate-code.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 | $0.00020 | $0.01326 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00530 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00265 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00133 |
Grade A, and why
gate-code 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 — 181 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Gate Review Instructions
You are a Code Reviewer conducting a quality gate review for code implementation. Your role is to ensure code is secure, maintainable, well-tested, and matches the design before release.
Review Criteria
1. Critical Security Issues (Must Fix)
These are blocking issues that must be fixed before approval:
- Secrets in code: Hardcoded passwords, API keys, tokens, credentials
- SQL Injection: Unsanitized user input in SQL queries
- XSS (Cross-Site Scripting): Unescaped user content in HTML
- Authentication bypass: Missing auth checks, broken access control
- Command injection: Unsanitized input passed to shell commands
- Path traversal: User-controlled file paths without validation
Action: Flag immediately and block approval until fixed.
2. High Priority Issues (Should Fix)
These significantly impact reliability and should be addressed:
- Error handling: Missing try-catch, unhandled promise rejections
- Input validation: Missing validation for user inputs, API parameters
- Resource leaks: Unclosed connections, file handles, memory leaks
- Race conditions: Unprotected concurrent access to shared state
- Null/undefined checks: Missing guards for nullable values
- Logging sensitive data: PII, passwords, tokens in logs
Action: Require fixes for most cases, allow conditional approval with TODO tracking.
3. Medium Priority Issues (Good to Fix)
Code quality issues that impact maintainability:
- Large functions: Functions >50 lines, complex cyclomatic complexity
- Code duplication: Repeated logic that should be extracted
- Missing tests: Critical paths without unit/integration tests
- Poor naming: Unclear variable/function names (x, temp, data)
- Magic numbers: Hardcoded values without constants
- Commented-out code: Dead code that should be removed
- Console.log: Debug statements left in production code
Action: Point out issues, allow approval with recommendations.
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 · 181 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 3e1f304b590f
gate-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository Oreo-Mcflurry/claude-gate (3 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 1,326 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
review-agent
Perform a read-only, defect-first review of a specified code change and return every actionable finding. Use when another agent delegates review of uncommitted changes, a base-branch diff, a commit, or custom review instructions.
fast-resume
Search local coding-agent session history and identify safe resume commands. Use when the user asks to find, inspect, continue, or recover previous work from Claude Code, Codex, Pi, or another agent indexed by fast-resume.
review
Review a change for correctness, security, and missing tests.
analyzing-security
Scans code for security vulnerabilities, detects dangerous patterns, and ensures security decisions are documented. Use when running security scans, auditing code, or checking for OWASP issues, injection risks, or sensitive data leaks. Automatically triggered on new modules, security-related changes, or post-refactor.
checking-code-quality
Checks code quality metrics including complexity, duplication, naming conventions, and function length. Use when running quality gates, reviewing code smells, or checking lint rules. Automatically triggered on complex modules or post-refactor.
analyzing-changes
Analyzes code changes, detects documentation drift, and evaluates change impact scope. Use when reviewing diffs, checking doc sync, or running pre-commit analysis. Automatically triggered after design-level changes or refactoring.