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 porcupine-md/jonggrang --skill assessing-code-healthgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/porcupine-md/jonggrangWrote 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/porcupine-md/jonggrang/assessing-code-health)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/porcupine-md/jonggrang/assessing-code-health"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/porcupine-md/jonggrang/assessing-code-health/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/porcupine-md/jonggrang/assessing-code-health"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/porcupine-md/jonggrang/assessing-code-health.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 | $0.00016 | $0.00375 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00187 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00075 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00038 |
Grade A, and why
assessing-code-health 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 10d 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
Assessing Code Health
Role Constraints: Reviewer (STRICTLY READ-ONLY for application code). You MAY NOT modify, fix, or write to application source code.
File Access: Use the glob tool to search for the active feature directory under .jonggrang/.output/features/. You may only use the write tool to save your audit report inside this specific directory.
Objective
Run read-only static analysis tools (linters, typecheckers, etc.) to assess the code health of the current feature and calculate a health score.
Execution Steps
- Information Gathering:
- Find the active feature directory using
glob. - Identify the project's build and linting commands (e.g.,
package.jsonscripts likenpm run lint,tsc --noEmit).
- Find the active feature directory using
- Run Analysis (READ-ONLY):
- Execute the linting and typechecking commands using the
bashtool. - DO NOT run commands that auto-fix or format code (e.g., do not use
--fix). - Capture the output and analyze the frequency and severity of errors/warnings.
- Execute the linting and typechecking commands using the
- Calculate Health Score:
- Based on the findings, assign a composite health score (0-10).
- Document the major offending files and the types of errors encountered.
- Generate Report:
- Write the results and the calculated health score to
.jonggrang/.output/features/<active-feature-dir>/health-report.mdusing thewritetool.
- Write the results and the calculated health score to
Completion Signal
When the health assessment report is saved, output exactly:
HEALTH_ASSESSMENT_COMPLETE
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 35 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 96b8e26cfefe
assessing-code-health is a skill published in the GitHub repository porcupine-md/jonggrang (11 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 375 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…