Oh My Claude Code is a multi-agent orchestration system for Claude Code, coordinating specialized agents, commands, skills, hooks, and workflows. It is designed for developers who want Claude Code to handle coding tasks through coordinated agent roles. Catalogue entries are components of its Claude Code workflow, including agents, commands, skills, hooks, instructions, MCP configuration, and a plugin.
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 Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode --skill prgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecodeWrote 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/yeachan-heo/oh-my-claudecode/pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/yeachan-heo/oh-my-claudecode/pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yeachan-heo/oh-my-claudecode/pr/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/yeachan-heo/oh-my-claudecode/pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yeachan-heo/oh-my-claudecode/pr.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 | $0.00047 | $0.00684 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00274 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00137 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00068 |
Grade A, and why
pr 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- pr — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 67 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Body
When work lands behind a review, the PR body is the one artifact a reviewer outside the session reads. Everything it needs already exists in the paper trail — this skill assembles it and adds nothing that was not already established. The summary-visual discipline is inspired by show-me (credited in the frontmatter).
Template
## Summary
<one-line claim, then the smallest visual that proves it>
## Evidence
- **Before:** <output / failing check>
**After:** <output / passing check>
## Reversibility
<Rollback: cheap via <mechanism> | expensive because <reason>>
<Blast radius: one line>
Sections
Summary
State the change in one sentence, then show the smallest view that makes the point. Match the visual to the change:
- logic or an algorithm → pseudocode
- runtime control flow → a call tree
- UI structure → a component tree
- file responsibility or a broad refactor → a shallow file tree
- component interaction or data flow → a Mermaid diagram
- the delta itself → a diff shaped like the change (component, layout, call tree, or state machine)
Show the whole block only when most of it is new, omitted context would hide ownership, or the reviewer needs a copyable target shape. One visual usually suffices; never all forms.
Evidence
Consume the verify protocol's output — BUILD, TEST, LINT, FUNCTIONALITY evidence, freshness rule inherited. Present before/after pairs: the exact check that failed before and passes after, quoted from the output itself. When the change is visual, prefer a captured screenshot; qa-tester can drive the runtime for one. Never re-collect evidence here and never claim evidence the verify pass did not produce.
Reversibility
Run the ADR test on the diff itself — the same three questions launch applies to decisions: hard to reverse? surprising without context? the result of a real trade-off? A no on all three is a cheap rollback: say by what mechanism (revert the merge, toggle the flag). Any yes means an expensive rollback: say why. Link the ADR when the change implements or touches one. Close with the blast radius in one line — what else this change can move.
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 First seen · 67 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A 6bdee6f50ad4
pr is a skill published in the GitHub repository Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode (39,658 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 684 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-10-02.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-commit
Generate and validate conventional commit messages following the conventionalcommits.org spec. Use whenever the user wants to commit code, mentions commit messages, git commit, or asks to create a commit. Triggers on "commit", "git commit", "conventional", or when reviewing commit message format.
spec-finish
Post-implementation completion workflow for Spec-backed Plans. Use after spec-implement completes to validate, review, create stacked commits, and open a PR via code-pull-request. Triggers only with an active Spec-backed Plan after spec-implement completes, including when the user says "finish", "done", or "complete"…
code-pull-request
Manage GitHub pull requests or GitLab merge requests: create, read/leave/respond to comments, and merge. Triggers on "open a PR", "make a PR", "merge this PR", "merge the MR", "read PR comments", "leave a comment on the PR", "respond to a comment", "ship this", or when a feature branch is ready for review.
verify-built
Stage-1 acceptance verification — requirements-alignment check between the active plan/spec and the actual implementation diff, producing a GAP ledger bound to a commit digest. Use before accepting, PR-ing, or handoff-packaging any implementation work. Empirical QA and human-facing acceptance reports are later stages…
review-protocol
Automated code review agent that analyzes git diffs and returns structured findings in CRITICAL/WARNING/INFO format. Loaded by sub-agents tasked with reviewing code changes.
worktrees
Manage Git worktrees as OMO safe isolated coding lanes for complex, risky, or parallel work.