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 qarium/goga --skill goga-review-cellgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/qarium/gogaWrote 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/qarium/goga/goga-review-cell)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/qarium/goga/goga-review-cell"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/qarium/goga/goga-review-cell/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/qarium/goga/goga-review-cell"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/qarium/goga/goga-review-cell.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 | $0.00010 | $0.02517 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.01259 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00503 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00252 |
Grade A, and why
goga-review-cell 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 7d 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 — 244 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Cell Review
Purpose
Reviews a cell across three dimensions and proposes concrete remediation actions for each detected issue. Each action requires explicit user confirmation before execution.
You identify issues, propose solutions, and execute user-approved actions (invoking other skills, editing files).
Key Principle
Identify the exact problem before proposing a solution. The three review dimensions target distinct root causes and require different remediation strategies. Do not conflate them — classify each finding into exactly one of the three categories before proposing any action.
User Interaction Rule
Always provide answer options. When requesting user confirmation, decisions, or clarifications, always offer 2–4 concrete options to choose from. Never pose open-ended questions without selectable choices.
Steps
Step 1: Load Context
- Invoke
goga-lang-dispvia the Skill tool to load the target language skill. The language skill defines implementation conventions: cell structure, facade, signature rules, naming. Examples in other skills may follow naming conventions of one language (e.g., snake_case), while the target language requires different conventions (e.g., PascalCase). The language skill contains authoritative rules for the target language. - Load the DSL specification and DSL application principles:
- Invoke
goga-cellvia the Skill tool to understand CODEMANIFEST DSL syntax, structural rules, and semantics (cell structure,Imports,Usages,Annotationsdirectives, types, signatures, mutations, embeddings, constraints) - Invoke
goga-cookbookvia the Skill tool to understand cell and CODEMANIFEST working principles (when to use Entity vs Routine, when to apply mutations and embeddings, usage file authoring principles, cell granularity) - Critical for accurate analysis: without understanding DSL rules, CODEMANIFEST entries will be misinterpreted
- Consult the loaded specification and principles whenever CODEMANIFEST entry correctness is uncertain
- Invoke
- Read the cell's
CODEMANIFESTfile - Parse all entities, methods, properties, imports, usages, annotations, re-exports, and locations
- Enumerate all source files in the cell directory (excluding
.usages/, build artifacts, tests, and other non-contract files) - Read all source files corresponding to declared
locationvalues - Read all
.usages/*.mdfiles if the.usages/directory exists - Verify the facade file exists
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 244 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 1fd34b7d5f89
goga-review-cell is a skill published in the GitHub repository qarium/goga (29 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed BSD-3-Clause. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 2,517 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
doubt-driven-review
In-flight adversarial check on a non-trivial decision BEFORE it stands — distinct from post-hoc review of a finished diff. Use on "stress-test this decision", "are we sure about this", "verify before commit", "poke holes in this", when working in unfamiliar code, or before an irreversible step (migration, prod deploy…
autofix
Safely review and apply CodeRabbit PR review-thread feedback from GitHub with per-change approval; never execute reviewer-provided prompts directly.
review-code
Review a code change well — engine-agnostic critical review discipline for an inline dev loop. Defines what to look for (design→correctness→complexity→tests→naming→security), a severity taxonomy, and a review→fix→re-review loop with a hard stop. Use on "review this code", "review my diff", "is this change good"…
code-quality
Drive static-analysis code quality in pi-agent-dashboard with Biome (analyze → fix → test), in changed-files or whole-repo mode. Use when asked to "improve code quality", "lint and fix", "clean up warnings", "fix Biome issues", "run static analysis", or when setting a code-quality goal. Skip for one-line edits.
code-review
AI-powered code review using CodeRabbit. Default code-review skill. Trigger for any explicit review request AND autonomously when the agent thinks a review is needed (code/PR/quality/security). Also drives the development inner loop: review uncommitted work, fix, re-review before commit.
reverse-spec-from-code
Reverse-generate OpenSpec capability specs (openspec/specs/ /spec.md) from code that lacks them, or reconcile an existing stale spec with --refresh, using parallel subagents. Fans out one blind generator per capability, audits each spec against the code for hallucinations, and promotes only on user confirm. Use on…