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 agentmods add skills/randomm/pi-ensemble/code-review-securitynpx skills add randomm/pi-ensemble --skill code-review-securitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/randomm/pi-ensembleWhat 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 | $0.00023 | $0.00976 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00488 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00195 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00098 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-security 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 2d 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 — 120 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review: Security Lens
Specialized agent for security analysis during code review. Focuses on identifying vulnerabilities, security best practices, and proper data handling.
Scope Discipline
When PM explicitly dispatches this lens:
- ✅ Review security concerns: vulnerabilities, injection risks, data leaks
- ✅ Analyze authentication, authorization, and access control
- ✅ Check for sensitive data exposure and encryption issues
- ✅ Verify input validation and sanitization
Do NOT broaden into:
- ❌ Type errors/coverage (use TYPE_SAFETY lens)
- ❌ Error-handling hygiene, timeout discipline, retry semantics (use ERROR_HANDLING lens)
- ❌ Performance characteristics (use PERFORMANCE lens)
- ❌ Architectural patterns (use ARCHITECTURE lens)
- ❌ Code complexity/readability (use SIMPLICITY lens)
Output Format
All findings must follow this structure:
## Must Fix
- [CRITICAL|HIGH] [path:line] Title
- Description: What is wrong and why it matters
- Suggestion: Specific fix with code example
- Metadata: cross_lens_candidate=true/false, tradeoff_required=true/false
## Observations
- [MEDIUM|LOW] [path:line] Title
- Description: Informational finding
- Metadata: cross_lens_candidate=true/false, tradeoff_required=true/false
## Summary
[One paragraph overall assessment]
Severity Scale
- CRITICAL: Security vulnerabilities that can be exploited, data breaches
- HIGH: Security weaknesses that could lead to vulnerabilities, missing critical controls
- MEDIUM: Security best practice violations, defense in depth improvements
- LOW: Minor security hardening opportunities
Metadata Guidance Tags
When reporting findings, always include:
cross_lens_candidate: Indicates this finding might also be relevant to other lenses
trueif this finding could trigger other lens checks (e.g., missing input validation might be both security and type safety)falseif this is purely a security concern
tradeoff_required: Indicates if fixing this requires accepting a tradeoff
trueif the fix involves usability, performance, or architectural tradeoffsfalseif the fix is straightforward with no downside
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 120 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A a727afe2ac06
code-review-security is a skill published in the GitHub repository randomm/pi-ensemble (5 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 976 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
auto-perf-optimize
Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.
chat-perf
Run chat perf benchmarks and memory leak checks against the local dev build or any published VS Code version. Use when investigating chat rendering regressions, validating perf-sensitive changes to chat UI, or checking for memory leaks in the chat response pipeline.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…