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 SimpleEve/eo-skills --skill eo-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/SimpleEve/eo-skillsWrote 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/simpleeve/eo-skills/eo-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/simpleeve/eo-skills/eo-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/simpleeve/eo-skills/eo-review/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/simpleeve/eo-skills/eo-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/simpleeve/eo-skills/eo-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00105 | $0.01686 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00053 | $0.00843 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00337 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00169 |
Grade A, and why
eo-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 6d 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 — 81 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
eo-review — 代码审查（按需闸门）
本 skill 是可选闸门。根据 change.md（验收清单 + TODO）对已实施的代码做独立审查，产出简版报告。
与 /eo-change-review 的区别：本 skill 审代码（implement 之后）；change-review 审方案（implement 之前）。两者都是按需闸门，不是必经节点。
核心原则
- AC 是检查表：change.md §2 逐条核对实现覆盖
- 最佳实践审查：代码质量、命名、架构合理性
- 简版报告：结论 + P0/P1/P2 清单，输出到
eo-doc/changes/<change-id>/review.md；复审覆盖重写（历史由 git 兜） - 通过即流转：审查通过（无未决 P0/P1）时把 change.md
status置reviewed（可选状态，只有本 skill 写）
对抗立场
默认这份实现有罪——审查的目标是推翻它，不是确认它：主动构造反例、对抗输入与边界组合去戳每条 AC 和关键实现路径。「没发现问题」不是结论，「试图推翻但失败」才是——报告须能列出试过的攻击面（构造过的对抗输入、核验过的前提、推演过的失败路径）；列不出攻击面的审查视为没做。
前置条件
- 必须能找到
.eo-project.json。同目录存在.eo-project.local.json时顶层字段覆盖合并（local 优先）。找不到 → 报错退出，提示运行/eo-project-init eo-doc/changes/<change-id>/change.md存在，相关代码已实现（TODO 至少部分勾选），status 为implementing或reviewed- 调用依据：§6 信号命中未豁免 / 用户显式点名。都没有 → 告知默认主路不需要本闸门，确认仍要跑再继续
前置拦截（硬性）
| 信号 | 正确路径 |
|---|---|
change.md status: draft / confirmed 且 TODO 全未勾选 |
先 /eo-implement；审方案走 /eo-change-review |
| 用户描述是「审查 change 方案」/「implement 之前再看看」 | /eo-change-review（不是本 skill） |
| 用户描述是「实施后发现方案/架构不对」 | eo-change 回炉子流程（不是本 skill） |
工作流程
第一步：阅读上下文
eo-doc/changes/<change-id>/change.md：§1 意图与已钉决策、§2 AC、§5 TODO、§6 风险- 相关代码定位：
.codegraph/索引存在则codegraph explore优先召回；不存在则按目录收敛 + 源码直读 - 本次交付的 diff（按 frontmatter
base_commit起算，或[<change-id>]前缀提交）
第二步：代码审查
- 维度 1 · 验收覆盖：§2 每条 AC 逐条核对实现与证据；反向核对：diff 中映射不到任何 AC/TODO 的行为新增（镀金）→ P1 建议裁剪或转 backlog
- 维度 2 · 逻辑正确性：核心逻辑、异常处理、边界条件；竞态/死锁/资源泄漏/生命周期
- 维度 3 · 架构合规：分层、模块边界、依赖方向；职责单一、无不合理耦合
- 维度 4 · 代码规范：命名一致、类型严格、重复代码；注释纪律（项目
eo-doc/agent-handbook/comments.md，未启用时以行内标准：溯源标注与叙事辩护）只作观察——发现流程溯源标注或叙事辩护注释 → P2，不阻塞 - 维度 5 · 安全与性能：注入/越权/敏感信息暴露；明显性能瓶颈
- 维度 6 · 设计一致性（条件）：涉及 UI 且仓库根有
DESIGN.md→ 字体/色值/间距/圆角符合性；色板外颜色、刻度外魔法数标 P1
finding 标根因：业务源码归 implementation；测试本身的问题归 test-asset；验收口径或方案本身有误归 requirement。
第三步：报告与速报
- 按 references/review-template.md 写入
review.md（覆盖式：复审先核销上一版未决清单——fixed 按修复 commit 复验 → verified / 回 open，再加上新发现；用户当场裁决不修的标waived附原话，不阻塞） - status 流转（双向都归本 skill）：无未决 P0/P1 → change.md
status置reviewed；有 P0/P1 且当前已是reviewed（复审翻车）→ 当场置回implementing - 对话速报（硬性）：
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 6d ago Changed · -48 lines · +29 tokens per session bb283f56e73f
- 10d ago First seen · 129 lines · 76 tokens per session scan A 4ce721d48c31
eo-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository SimpleEve/eo-skills (31 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 105 tokens to every session and 1,686 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
refactor
Expert code refactoring based on Martin Fowler's catalog — improve maintainability without changing behavior. Covers code smells, composing methods, moving features, organizing data, simplifying conditionals, method calls, and generalization. Triggers on: refactor, 重构, clean up, improve code, code smell, extract…
understand
Review and understand freshly AI-generated code. Scans the current repo's uncommitted/branch changes and builds a Claude-style light-themed two-column webpage — left is the project folder tree of changed files, right is the selected file's syntax-highlighted diff (additions/deletions clearly distinguished from…
technical-debt-analyzer
Detect and analyze areas with high maintenance cost, poor design, or accumulated technical debt. Use this skill when reviewing codebases for quality issues, planning refactoring efforts, conducting code audits, assessing project health, identifying maintenance hotspots, or prioritizing technical improvements. Analyzes…
code-smell-detector
Identify and report code smells indicating poor design or maintainability issues in Python code, including duplicate code, magic numbers, hardcoded values, God classes, feature envy, inappropriate intimacy, data clumps, primitive obsession, and long parameter lists. Use when conducting code quality audits, preparing…
code-review-assistant
Conduct comprehensive code reviews identifying bugs, security issues, performance problems, code quality concerns, and best practice violations. Use when reviewing pull requests, examining code changes, evaluating new code, assessing code quality, or providing feedback on implementations. Analyzes code for…
design-smell-detector
Identify design quality issues in code including high coupling, low cohesion, God classes, long methods, and other code smells. Use when: (1) Reviewing code architecture and design quality, (2) Identifying refactoring opportunities, (3) Detecting God classes or classes with too many responsibilities, (4) Finding high…