Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Sma1lboy/rove. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Sma1lboy/rove/main/.agents/skills/pstack/skills/no-comments/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Sma1lboy/roveWrote 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/sma1lboy/rove/no-comments)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sma1lboy/rove/no-comments"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sma1lboy/rove/no-comments/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/sma1lboy/rove/no-comments"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sma1lboy/rove/no-comments.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 | $0.00020 | $0.00589 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00236 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00118 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00059 |
Grade A, and why
no-comments 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 1mo 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.
This is a copy
94% identical to no-comments — 10 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 27 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
No comments
Spawn Comment Sicko. Act on accepted findings.
Authoring agents defend comments. Defer to Comment Sicko's fresh perspective.
Scope
Use the caller's files or diff. Otherwise use the current diff against the base branch, default main, including the working tree.
Steps
- Spawn
Taskwithsubagent_type: "Comment Sicko". Pass the scope. Do not restate its rules. - Inspect its report and diff. Reject application-code edits, scope escapes, exception-protected deletions, misstated
MUST KILLreasons, and flags that treat kept intentional code as guilty. Reshape flags on our-code surprises stay actionable. Do not restore those comments. A keep survives only with proof it is about something we cannot change. Audit missed scoped lint and TypeScript suppressions. Correctness or safety suppressions stay actionableMUST KILLs. Restore deletions only with exact exceptions and scoped proof. Before accepting thinIMPORTANTordo not removekills or keeps, run/howor/whyon their symbol. If a kill is ambiguous, do not restore. If a keep is refuted or still ambiguous, delete it. Revert and rerun one rejected report with the failure named. Reject a second, report it open, and fail/no-comments. - Fix trivial accepted flags directly by deleting a dead path, dropping a parameter, or using the real API. If any fix needs a shape, run
/architectonce for the accepted set and surrounding code. Stop at the sketch. Architect shapes. Step 4 implements. - Implement the smallest root-cause fix in scope. Remove every named workaround. If the root cause is out of scope, land the smallest in-scope fix and report the rest open. The principle-fix-root-causes and principle-redesign-from-first-principles skills guide intent only: fix real causes, redesign as if requirements always existed, never bolt on symptom guards. Neither authorizes widening the fence nor fixing instances outside it.
- Constraint comments say
do not remove,do not change wording, ortalk to X before changing. Leave keeps about things we cannot change. Offer the cheapest in-scope type, runtime, test, or CI lint. Wait for interactive approval. Unattended and eval require caller pre-approval. If approved, encode then delete. Otherwise delete, report the constraint open, and sketch out-of-scope work. - Report the deletion count, restored comments, reruns, architect sketch, fixes, encoding offers, encodings, unenforced constraints, and other open work.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 27 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A f8bfab879772
no-comments is a skill published in the GitHub repository Sma1lboy/rove (178 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 589 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to no-comments, differing in 10 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
pr-standards
Enforce pull request best practices: size limits, description templates, testing requirements, and review workflows. Activate whenever the user creates a PR, asks about PR best practices, sets up PR templates, discusses code review turnaround, or mentions PR size, review requirements, or branch protection rules.
review-checklist
Systematic code review checklist with severity classification. Activate whenever the user asks for a code review, wants feedback on their code, submits a PR for review, or asks what to look for when reviewing code. Also activate when writing review comments or discussing code quality standards.
pr-workflow
Guide pull request creation, review process, CI gates, and merge strategies. Use when the user creates a PR, asks about PR templates, review workflows, CODEOWNERS setup, or merge strategies. Apply when running gh pr create.
spawn-reviewers
Spawn and collect the reviewer fleet at stage20spawnreviewers. Consumes spawn.json.spec (the authoritative spawn spec from derive-spawn-spec / derive-static-spec), resolves CODEINTELALLOWED and CODEINTELREQUIREROOTARG, builds per-agent prompts from the per-agent template + role suffixes (Bug Hunter A/B, Unified…
present-local
Render the operator-facing local-mode code review results at stage29present. Covers BLOCKING/HIGH/MEDIUM section templates, Justified Findings (PLN-721), Dismissed Findings (PLN-722), Verifier Stats footer (PLN-773), operator-flag descriptions, override precedence rule for stage22b, Validation Summary, and final…
verify-findings
Dispatch and collect the finding-verifier fleet at stage23verifyfindings (PLN-722). Reads verifymanifest.json (written by stage22bverifyprepare), spawns one falsify-oriented verifier Task per toverify[] entry with mode-specific Task scheduling (GitHub mode dispatches verifiers synchronously; local mode uses parallel…