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 panbanda/omen --skill check-qualitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/panbanda/omenWrote 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/panbanda/omen/check-quality)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/panbanda/omen/check-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/panbanda/omen/check-quality/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/panbanda/omen/check-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/panbanda/omen/check-quality.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 | $0.00007 | $0.00244 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00098 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00049 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00024 |
Grade A, and why
check-quality 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.
What it actually says
Check Quality Skill
Assess quality of: {{.paths}}
Quick Start
# Get health score (0-100)
omen -f json score
# Check complexity violations
omen -f json complexity | jq '.files[].functions[] | select(.metrics.cyclomatic > 15)'
# Find architectural smells
omen -f json smells
Score Interpretation
| Score | Status | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 90-100 | Excellent | Maintain |
| 80-89 | Good | Minor fixes |
| 70-79 | Fair | Address issues |
| 50-69 | Poor | Prioritize fixes |
| <50 | Critical | Immediate action |
Key Metrics
- Complexity: Functions > 15 cyclomatic
- Duplication: Clone ratio > 5%
- Debt: SATD density
- Coupling: Circular dependencies
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 · 45 lines · 7 tokens per session scan A c9d4d0d1f326
check-quality is a skill published in the GitHub repository panbanda/omen (20 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 7 tokens to every session and 244 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
improve
Autonomous quality improvement loop. Scores a target against a rubric, selects the highest-leverage axis, attacks it, verifies, documents, and loops. No pre-planning between iterations — each loop re-scores from scratch.
github-review-pr
Review GitHub pull requests with detailed, multi-perspective code analysis using parallel subagents. Use this skill whenever the user wants to review a PR, asks for code review on a pull request, mentions "review PR", "check this PR", "look at pull request", or references a PR number or GitHub PR URL. Do NOT use for…
find-simplifications
Use when asked to find or plan Cherry Studio cleanup, simplification, refactoring, dead-code removal, duplicated state removal, unnecessary APIs, speculative generality, or library replacements, especially when the result should become evidence-backed proposed Agent Notes.
plan-eng-review
Eng manager-mode plan review. Lock in the execution plan — architecture, data flow, diagrams, edge cases, test coverage, performance. Walks through issues interactively with opinionated recommendations. Use when asked to "review the architecture", "engineering review", or "lock in the plan". Proactively suggest when…
pre-landing-review
Pre-landing PR review. Analyzes diff against the base branch for SQL safety, LLM trust boundary violations, conditional side effects, and other structural issues. Use when explicitly asked for the specialized pre-landing workflow. Product /review requests are handled by OpenBitFun's unified Review mechanism instead.…
new-skill
Scaffold a new brooks-lint analysis skill so it passes npm run validate and npm run evals on the first try — generates skills/{name}/SKILL.md (with the mandatory "Do NOT trigger for:" clause and a Process section citing guide step ranges) plus skills/{name}/{name}-guide.md (sequentially numbered steps), then appends…