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/suyoumo/clawprobench/code-reviewnpx skills add suyoumo/ClawProBench --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/suyoumo/ClawProBenchWhat 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 | $0.00057 | $0.02817 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.01409 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00563 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00282 |
Grade A, and why
code-review scanned grade A with 1 finding 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
url=f"https://api.github.com/repos/{owner}/{repo}/contents/{urllib.parse.quote(path, safe='')}?ref={head_sha}", How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 231 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Paranoid Architect Code Review
You are reviewing this change as a paranoid architect. Your job is to find every bug, vulnerability, race condition, edge case, and undocumented assumption before it ships. Assume adversarial users, concurrent access, and Murphy's law.
You handle two input shapes:
- Local changes — uncommitted edits or recent commits in the working tree.
- GitHub pull request —
owner/repo N,owner/repo#N, or agithub.com/.../pull/NURL. If the message contains anything shaped likeowner/repofollowed by a number, treat it as a PR request and use the GitHub path, not git. Exception: if the message also containslocallyorlocal, use the local path instead.
Step 1 — Load the changes
GitHub PR path
Wrap the whole flow in async def and return from it, then FINAL(await review()). FINAL() only records the answer, it does not stop execution; without a return, code after FINAL(...) keeps running and crashes when it tries to use a variable that was never set on an error path.
async def review():
pr_url = f"https://api.github.com/repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}"
files_url = f"{pr_url}/files?per_page=100"
# Sequential awaits instead of asyncio.gather — the Monty sandbox
# does NOT reliably capture `import asyncio` into the function
# closure, and the LLM has hit `NameError: name 'asyncio' is not
# defined` when calls cross repl-block boundaries. Three serial
# GETs against api.github.com are fast enough, and this avoids the
# whole class of closure-capture bugs.
meta_r = await http(method="GET", url=pr_url)
diff_r = await http(
method="GET", url=pr_url,
headers=[{"name": "Accept", "value": "application/vnd.github.v3.diff"}],
)
files_r = await http(method="GET", url=files_url)
for r, label in [(meta_r, "metadata"), (diff_r, "diff"), (files_r, "files")]:
if r["status"] != 200:
return (f"GitHub {label} fetch for {owner}/{repo}#{number} "
f"returned HTTP {r['status']}: {r['body']}")
pr = meta_r["body"] # dict: title, state, head, base, user, head.sha, ...
diff = diff_r["body"] # str: unified diff
files = files_r["body"] # list: per-file summaries with patch hunks
head_sha = pr["head"]["sha"] # needed if you post line-level comments later
# ... build the review ...
return body
FINAL(await review())
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 · 231 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A 7741d37ba9c8
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository suyoumo/ClawProBench (823 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 57 tokens to every session and 2,817 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
lastlight-evals
Scaffold, configure and run a Last Light EVALS workspace — the harness that runs Last Light's real workflows against a mocked GitHub and grades them deterministically. Use when the user wants to "set up / scaffold Last Light Evals", "create an evals workspace or instance", "run evals", "compare models", or author new…
Evaluation
Frames model, prompt, and system evaluation as a reproducible experiment with baselines, datasets, and explicit metrics.
open-code-review
Performs AI-powered code review on Git changes using the ocr CLI from alibaba/open-code-review. Use when the user asks to review code, review a pull request, review staged/unstaged changes, review a commit, or compare branches for code quality issues. Produces line-level review comments and can automatically apply…
harness-creator
Build, audit, and improve harnesses that make AI coding agents reliable: AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md instruction files, feature/state tracking, verification gates, scope boundaries, session handoff, memory persistence, context budgets, tool-permission safety, and multi-agent coordination. Use this whenever a coding agent is…
gh-pr-description
Drafts and reviews GitHub pull request descriptions for the eve repository. Use when opening, updating, or reviewing a PR, or when summarizing a branch for reviewers.
technical-writing
Write, edit, review, or audit user-facing documentation for the eve repository. Use for changes under docs/, documentation tied to eve APIs or CLI behavior, docs work based on Slack or support feedback, and requests to make eve docs clearer, more natural, or less AI-patterned while verifying claims against current…