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 ytunahankskn/oh-meine-excode --skill review-squadgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ytunahankskn/oh-meine-excodeWrote 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/ytunahankskn/oh-meine-excode/review-squad)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ytunahankskn/oh-meine-excode/review-squad"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ytunahankskn/oh-meine-excode/review-squad/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/ytunahankskn/oh-meine-excode/review-squad"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ytunahankskn/oh-meine-excode/review-squad.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 | $0.00029 | $0.00346 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00173 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00069 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00035 |
Grade A, and why
review-squad 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 12d 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 Squad
Use this skill when the user asks for review, audit, verification, or a bug-risk pass and explicitly wants multi-agent collaboration.
The main output must remain findings-first.
Review Split Strategy
Recommended split:
- Main agent: own the primary review and final severity ordering
- Explorer A: trace architecture or behavior in the touched area
- Explorer B or Worker: check tests, regressions, or a high-risk subsystem
Only spawn a worker if the user also wants fixes or if a bounded verification task needs execution.
Priority Model
Focus on:
- correctness bugs
- behavioral regressions
- missing tests or validation gaps
- security or data handling risks
- maintainability issues with real user impact
Review Rules
- Findings come before summaries.
- Include tight file references.
- Avoid speculative nitpicks.
- State explicitly when no findings are discovered.
- Mention residual risks or unverified areas.
Parallel Patterns
Parallel Read Passes
Use two explorer agents when different questions can be answered independently, for example:
- "Does the new data flow preserve previous behavior?"
- "Are tests covering the new state transitions?"
Fix + Verify
If the user wants repair:
- main agent or worker implements the fix
- separate agent re-checks the patched area
Output Expectations
The final answer should include:
- ordered findings with file references
- open questions or assumptions
- brief change summary only after findings, if fixes were made
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 63 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A a27f4c43e49d
review-squad is a skill published in the GitHub repository ytunahankskn/oh-meine-excode (2 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 346 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
review-agent
Perform a read-only, defect-first review of a specified code change and return every actionable finding. Use when another agent delegates review of uncommitted changes, a base-branch diff, a commit, or custom review instructions.
grok-build-delegate
Use the local Grok Build CLI for second-opinion reviews, adversarial critiques, or delegated read-only investigation from Codex.
review-code
Review code changes for correctness defects, regressions, security risks, data-integrity problems, concurrency hazards, and missing meaningful tests. Use for pull requests, branches, commits, patches, or working-tree reviews; do not use for implementation unless the user separately requests fixes.
review-security
Review application and infrastructure changes for exploitable security risks by tracing assets, trust boundaries, attacker-controlled input, authorization, sensitive data, and dangerous sinks. Use for security reviews, threat-focused PR reviews, authentication or authorization changes, input handling, secrets…
code-intelligence-contract
Use when dependency, call-chain, blast-radius, architecture, domain-flow, or unfamiliar-codebase analysis needs an optional vendor-neutral code-intelligence provider.
ast-grep
Code search, analysis, and refactoring using ast-grep (sg). Use for AST-based code modifications, structural search, and linting.