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 Peaky8linders/eu-ai-act-scanner --skill crgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Peaky8linders/eu-ai-act-scannerWrote 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/peaky8linders/eu-ai-act-scanner/cr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/peaky8linders/eu-ai-act-scanner/cr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/peaky8linders/eu-ai-act-scanner/cr/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/peaky8linders/eu-ai-act-scanner/cr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/peaky8linders/eu-ai-act-scanner/cr.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 | $0.00034 | $0.02177 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00871 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00435 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00218 |
Grade A, and why
deep-code-review 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 8d 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 — 185 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Deep Code Review
Multi-agent bug-hunting review of the current branch against main. Dispatches specialist agents in parallel, verifies findings to filter false positives, ranks by severity, and produces a persistent report.
This is a technique skill. Follow the phases in order. Do not skip verification.
Pre-flight Checks
digraph preflight {
"Conversation has history?" [shape=diamond];
"On main/master?" [shape=diamond];
"Uncommitted changes?" [shape=diamond];
"Proceed to Phase 1" [shape=box];
"STOP: recommend new session" [shape=box, style=bold];
"STOP: nothing to review" [shape=box, style=bold];
"WARN: ask user" [shape=box];
"Conversation has history?" -> "STOP: recommend new session" [label="yes"];
"Conversation has history?" -> "On main/master?" [label="no"];
"On main/master?" -> "STOP: nothing to review" [label="yes"];
"On main/master?" -> "Uncommitted changes?" [label="no"];
"Uncommitted changes?" -> "WARN: ask user" [label="yes"];
"Uncommitted changes?" -> "Proceed to Phase 1" [label="no"];
"WARN: ask user" -> "Proceed to Phase 1" [label="user decides"];
}
- Context window: If conversation has substantive history beyond invoking this skill, tell the user: "This review consumes significant context. Start a fresh session with
/deep-code-reviewto avoid context rot." Stop and wait. - Branch: Must not be on main/master. If so, stop.
- Clean state: If uncommitted changes exist, ask: review committed state only, or wait to commit?
Phase 1: Reconnaissance
Run these commands and collect results:
git diff --stat main...HEAD— files and line countsgit diff main...HEAD— full diff content- Classify diff size:
- Small: <50 lines changed
- Medium: 50-500 lines changed
- Large: 500+ lines changed
- Scan for plan/design docs:
docs/plans/,aidlc-docs/, or similar - Scan for steering files:
CLAUDE.md,AGENTS.md, etc. - For each changed file, grep for callers/callees one level deep (function/method names from the diff)
- When the diff includes infrastructure files (schema migrations, build configs, CI pipelines, environment templates), check whether test-side counterparts exist (e.g., test resource directories with their own migrations, test-specific configs). Add any unmatched test infrastructure to the manifest for the Contract & Integration specialist.
- For small diffs: expand scope to full module/package for each changed file
- Build manifest: files to review (changed + adjacent), grouped for specialists
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 185 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A e774bdd0f9f9
deep-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Peaky8linders/eu-ai-act-scanner (5 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 2,177 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 2026-10-09.
Other skills, from other repositories
compliance-scan
Scans a Python AI project for EU AI Act compliance gaps using AIR Blackbox. Use when the user asks to check compliance, scan their code, audit their AI project, or mentions EU AI Act, Articles 9-15, or compliance checking.
interpret-results
Interprets AIR Blackbox scan results and maps findings to specific EU AI Act articles, recitals, and remediation steps. Use when the user has scan output and wants to understand what to fix, why it matters, or how to prioritize.
reviewing-plan-docs
Review planning documents by reading the plan docs and doing a thorough codebase walkthrough, then writing detailed review docs. Use when the user asks to review, audit, critique, or validate a plan, design doc, or spec in the permit0 repository.
tdd-bugfix
Reproduce → root-cause → failing test → minimal fix → verify. Trigger: 'fix this bug', 'reproduce and fix', 'TDD fix'. Requires a local test path.
shiny-py-optimize
Diagnose and fix performance problems in Shiny for Python apps — slow startup, sluggish interactions, blocking operations, and apps that struggle beyond a handful of concurrent users. Use when a Shiny for Python app is slow, hangs, recomputes too much, times out, or must support more users; when the user asks to…
audit
Project health audit and health check — architecture, performance, tests, dependencies, code quality. Use when assessing overall project health, before releases, or after refactors.