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 Stronger197/douchebag --skill douchebag-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Stronger197/douchebagWrote 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/stronger197/douchebag/douchebag-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/stronger197/douchebag/douchebag-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stronger197/douchebag/douchebag-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/stronger197/douchebag/douchebag-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stronger197/douchebag/douchebag-review.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 | $0.00039 | $0.00722 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00361 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00144 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00072 |
Grade A, and why
douchebag-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 10d 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.
The source is not reproduced here
A licence we could not identify
The repository carries a LICENSE file, but it is custom or dual enough that GitHub cannot name it and neither can this catalogue. Unknown terms are not permission, so the body is not copied here. Read the licence at the source and decide for yourself.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 63 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 6b0fb9aa086c
douchebag-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Stronger197/douchebag (6 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), with no licence file. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 722 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
security-architecture-review
Reviews a design or change for security before it ships — authentication and authorization, data handling, secrets, dependencies, and the secure-development practices around it. Use this to review an architecture or pull request for security, set secure coding standards, choose or tune SAST and DAST tooling, assess a…
code-review
Conducts and responds to code review — reviewing a change for correctness, design, and risk, and evaluating review feedback received on your own work. Use this before merging, when asked to review a diff or pull request, when review feedback has arrived and needs acting on, or when feedback seems wrong and needs a…
pattern-detection
Identify existing codebase patterns (naming conventions, architectural patterns, testing patterns) to maintain consistency. Use when generating code, reviewing changes, or understanding established practices.
review
Multi-agent code review with specialized perspectives (security, performance, patterns, simplification, tests).
refactor
Refactor, simplify, or clean up code for improved maintainability without changing business logic.
code-quality-review
Unified code review skill for correctness, design, readability, security, performance, testability, accessibility, and error-handling conventions. Use when reviewing changes, enforcing quality standards, or identifying technical debt.