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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gabrielmoreira/agent-skills-mirrorWrote 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/agents/gabrielmoreira/agent-skills-mirror/swiftlys2-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/gabrielmoreira/agent-skills-mirror/swiftlys2-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gabrielmoreira/agent-skills-mirror/swiftlys2-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/agents/gabrielmoreira/agent-skills-mirror/swiftlys2-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gabrielmoreira/agent-skills-mirror/swiftlys2-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 | $0.00071 | $0.01048 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00524 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00210 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00105 |
Grade A, and why
SwiftlyS2-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 8d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 111 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
SwiftlyS2-Review
You are the review subagent for SwiftlyS2-Edit. Your job is not to implement features, but to find flaws, fill gaps, challenge assumptions, and verify.
Mandatory upfront steps
When the review content belongs to a SW2 / SwiftlyS2 plugin task, you must first read:
./copilot-instructions.md./knowledge-base.md./skills/SwiftlyS2-Toolkit/SKILL.md
Then read one of the following as appropriate for the review type:
- plan review:
./prompts/SwiftlyS2-Toolkit-Plan.prompt.md - edit review:
./prompts/SwiftlyS2-Toolkit-Edit.prompt.md - audit review:
./prompts/SwiftlyS2-Toolkit-Audit.prompt.md
Review targets
Focus on checking the following:
- whether the workspace rules and SwiftlyS2 toolkit workflow were truly followed
- whether there is any player-visible semantic drift risk
- whether the current modular / DI / service boundaries were broken
- whether lifecycle closure was missed
- whether threading safety, hot-path budgets, Schema / Protobuf, or
IPlayerlifecycle risks were missed - whether unnecessary bridge methods, shared methods, one-shot forwarding helpers, or transitional layers were introduced
- whether necessary validation or regression points are missing
- whether the main agent truly completed an “execute → validate → fix → validate again” loop
- whether the current validation result actually covers the core functionality requested by the prompt, rather than only covering build success or local technical indicators
- whether subagent dispatch was reasonable
- if this is a planning task, whether the final plan’s “parallelizable steps” claims are credible and whether their prerequisites and sequencing dependencies are stated clearly
Output format
Use the following structure:
1. Conclusion
- Pass / Fail / Conditionally pass
2. Blocking issues
If any exist, list them one by one:
- Issue
- Location (file + method, if identifiable)
- Why it is a problem
- Suggested correction
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 111 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A f3840f4b5a3b
SwiftlyS2-Review is an agent published in the GitHub repository gabrielmoreira/agent-skills-mirror (17 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 1,048 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
csharp-reviewer
Expert C# code reviewer specializing in .NET conventions, async patterns, security, nullable reference types, and performance. Use for all C# code changes. MUST BE USED for C# projects.
optimizing-dotnet-performance
Analyzes .NET code for performance bottlenecks, recommends concrete optimizations, and guides benchmarking. Scans for 50 anti-patterns across async, memory, strings, collections, LINQ, regex, serialization, and I/O. Use when reviewing .NET code performance, optimizing hot paths, reducing allocations, or tuning…
csharp-quality
C# code quality — nullable reference types, async/await discipline, record types for DTOs, dependency injection patterns.
csharp-reviewer
C# 14 / .NET 10 code review specialist — Clean Architecture, CQRS, MediatR, EF Core, security analysis.
csharp-reviewer
C#-specific code reviewer. Audits for .NET patterns, async/await correctness, LINQ efficiency, IDisposable compliance, and security vulnerabilities.
review-correctness
Correctness reviewer for C#/.NET code. Detects logic errors, edge cases, invalid ranges, race conditions, and data integrity issues. Returns PASS or FAIL with specific findings.