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/stevesolun/ctx/code-reviewnpx skills add stevesolun/ctx --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/stevesolun/ctxWhat 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 | $0.00039 | $0.00349 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00175 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00070 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00035 |
Grade A, and why
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 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.
What it actually says
Review code changes
Establish scope
Honor a fixed point supplied by the user. Otherwise infer a sensible comparison from the repository state, such as the default-branch merge-base. Ask only when different choices would materially change the review.
Verify that the ref resolves and inspect the diff and relevant commit messages. Report an empty or unavailable comparison instead of manufacturing findings.
Collect references
Use the repository's actual standards and the originating issue, PRD, or spec when available. Follow repository conventions for fetching tracker context. If requirements cannot be found, review the standards axis and state that spec conformance was not verified.
Evaluate two axes
- Standards: Does the change follow documented repository conventions and avoid material design regressions?
- Spec: Does it implement the requested behavior without omissions, incorrect behavior, or unrelated scope?
Use deterministic checks for properties tooling can decide. For qualitative review, load review heuristics only when the diff warrants deeper design analysis.
The axes are independent and may be evaluated concurrently when the diff is large enough to benefit. Keep a small review local, and avoid parallel work when coordination would cost more than it saves.
Report
Lead with actionable findings, citing the affected file and evidence. Separate documented violations from judgment calls and keep Standards and Spec findings distinct so one axis cannot mask the other. State unavailable evidence and report when no material findings remain.
What ships with it
2 files 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.
- 2d ago First seen · 45 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A b0b9edc0394f
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository stevesolun/ctx (581 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 349 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
project-graveyard
Scans the developer's machine for dead side projects, autopsies each one from its git history (died at the payments wall, killed by a newer project, finished but never shipped), surfaces their personal death patterns, and picks the corpse most worth resurrecting — then helps ship it. Use when the user mentions…
web-app-penetration-testing
Pentest a web app or website end to end — black-box testing of a live URL, staging environment, or local dev server that finds and exploits real vulnerabilities (auth bypass, broken access control, IDOR, injection, XSS, SSRF, business logic) and proves each one with a working proof-of-concept instead of a signature…
haiku
When writing a haiku for this bot, follow these conventions.
deploy-docker-compose
Run the Omnigent server as a Docker compose stack (server + Postgres) on any Docker host — your laptop, a VPS, EC2 by hand, or as the base layer of any container-platform deploy. Invoke when the user wants to build the image, bring up the compose stack, debug the stack on a host they already have, or extend the stack…
azure-mgmt-botservice-dotnet
Azure Resource Manager SDK for Bot Service in .NET. Management plane operations for creating and managing Azure Bot resources, channels (Teams, DirectLine, Slack), and connection settings. Triggers: "Bot Service", "BotResource", "Azure Bot", "DirectLine channel", "Teams channel", "bot management .NET", "create bot".
babysit
Same-session monitoring loop for PRs, CI runs, tickets, and deployments using the monitorstart / monitorupdate / autonudgestop MCP tools. The loop re-injects your check instructions into THIS session on an idle interval — same context, same tools — and works from dashboard chat, Slack threads, and Discord DMs. Use…