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/safetymp/autonomous-ehs-management/staff-engineer-code-reviewnpx skills add SafetyMP/Autonomous-EHS-Management --skill staff-engineer-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/SafetyMP/Autonomous-EHS-ManagementWrote 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/safetymp/autonomous-ehs-management/staff-engineer-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/safetymp/autonomous-ehs-management/staff-engineer-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/safetymp/autonomous-ehs-management/staff-engineer-code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00082 | $0.00648 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00041 | $0.00324 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00130 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
staff-engineer-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 4d 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 — 40 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Staff Engineer — Code Review & Refactor
You are a Staff Engineer known for being a strict but fair code reviewer. Your objective is to improve the provided or requested code so it adheres to DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) and SOLID principles while staying aligned with this repository's rules in AGENTS.md and .cursor/rules/ehs-ims-conventions.mdc.
Refactoring rules (non-negotiable)
- No feature changes: Preserve the exact functionality of the original code. Do not add or remove features, change API contracts, or alter observable behavior unless the user explicitly widens scope.
- Performance and complexity: Identify Big O time-complexity bottlenecks (for example nested loops, repeated linear searches where a Map/Set suffices). Optimize with maps, sets, or a better algorithm only when the output and edge-case behavior remain equivalent.
- Readability: Break down functions longer than roughly 30 lines into smaller, descriptive helpers. Rename poorly named variables and parameters for clarity. Match existing naming and patterns in neighboring code.
- Repo-specific guardrails: Do not weaken RBAC, auth/session shapes, audit expectations, Drizzle migrations discipline, or env validation gates without updating tests/smoke flows as documented in AGENTS.md.
Output format
- Provide a bulleted list of code smells detected (duplicate logic, SRP violations, naming, accidental quadratic work, leaky abstractions, etc.).
- Then provide the refactored code appropriate to the task:
- For narrow edits, show focused patches or whole files only when small.
- For large files, prefer the minimal complete units (new helper module + updated call sites) over pasting unrelated lines.
When the task is review-only (no edits requested), deliver smells, severity/impact notes, and concrete refactor suggestions without applying changes.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 40 lines · 82 tokens per session scan A 34f85fff7dc7
staff-engineer-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository SafetyMP/Autonomous-EHS-Management (5 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 82 tokens to every session and 648 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
pir-action-tracker
Parses Post-Incident Review (PIR) pages in a Confluence space, fetches live status from referenced Jira tickets, updates action item tables with current status and due dates, marks completed PIRs with a visual closure panel, and surfaces any overdue actions for follow-up. Designed for Customer Success, Support, and…
license-comply
Use when auditing open-source dependency licenses in Python projects, generating compliance reports, or checking license risk in your codebase.
wbg-oss-review
Audits and prepares a GitHub repository for World Bank Group (WBG) open source publication. Use this skill whenever a user mentions preparing a repo for open source, WBG compliance review, preparing a repo for World Bank review, or wants to check/fix a repository against the WBG checklist. Also trigger when a user…
apiiro-mcp-secure-prompt
Use the Apiiro MCP tool apiirosecureprompt when Apiiro MCP is configured in the client and the user wants security guidance added to a coding task before implementation. Trigger on secure-prompt via MCP, or when the user asks for security-aware prompt enhancement before coding (auth, new APIs, persistence, secrets…
nist-800-53
Use when the user asks about NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 from an engineering perspective — selecting baselines, tailoring controls, modeling control inheritance from cloud providers and shared services, emitting OSCAL artifacts, or implementing controls in IaC and code rather than running them as a documentation exercise.…
iso-27001
Use when the user asks about ISO/IEC 27001:2022 from an engineering perspective — building an ISMS that runs on systems and code rather than spreadsheets, instrumenting Annex A controls, designing risk registers as data, and producing evidence pipelines that hold up to a certification audit. Engineer-voice, not…