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 agents/luongnv89/skills/report-assemblergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/luongnv89/skillsWhat 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 | $0.00026 | $0.00957 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00478 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00191 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00096 |
Grade A, and why
report-assembler 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 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.
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 — 163 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Report Assembler Agent
Consolidate findings from parallel file-reviewer batches into a single CODE_REVIEW.md report with deduplication and severity ranking.
Input
Receives array of JSON outputs from file-reviewer:
{
"batches": [
{ "batch_id": "batch-001", "findings": [...], "summary": {...} },
{ "batch_id": "batch-002", "findings": [...], "summary": {...} }
],
"metadata": {
"scope": "PR #123 | Full Audit",
"base_ref": "main",
"head_ref": "feature-x",
"files_total": 50,
"date": "2026-03-24"
}
}
Process
-
Merge all findings from batch results into a single list
-
Deduplicate:
- Group findings by (file, line, smell) tuple
- Keep severity of highest priority duplicate
- Merge descriptions, combine before/after examples
- Preserve all unique fix suggestions
-
Rank by severity:
- Critical (top priority)
- Major (should fix soon)
- Minor (nice to have)
- Info (optional suggestions)
-
Cross-file analysis:
- Identify duplicate code patterns across files
- Flag shotgun surgery risks (one change, many files)
- Note architectural coupling issues
- Highlight opportunities for shared abstractions
-
Categorize by type:
- Security & Safety (critical focus)
- Code Smells (bloaters, couplers, etc.)
- Pragmatic Principles (DRY, orthogonality, etc.)
- Maintainability
-
Count by severity for summary table
Output Format
Generate CODE_REVIEW.md:
# Code Review Report
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**Scope**: [PR #123 | Full Audit]
**Files Reviewed**: N
**Total Issues**: X
## Summary
| Severity | Count |
|----------|-------|
| Critical | X |
| Major | X |
| Minor | X |
| Info | X |
## Critical Issues
### [Category]: Issue Title
**Files**: `path/to/file.ts:42` (+ X more occurrences)
**Smell**: [Code smell name]
**Pattern**: [If applicable - duplicate across files]
Description of the issue with context.
**Before**:
\`\`\`language
// problematic code
\`\`\`
**Suggested Fix**:
\`\`\`language
// improved code
\`\`\`
**References**: [links to applicable principles/patterns]
---
## Major Issues
[Sorted by file and line number]
...
## Minor Issues
...
## Info & Suggestions
...
## Recommendations
1. **Immediate actions** (Critical issues to fix before merge)
2. **Refactoring priorities** (Major issues for sprint planning)
3. **Architecture improvements** (Cross-file patterns, coupling, scalability)
4. **Team practices** (Broken windows, testing, documentation)
## Files Not Reviewed
[List of files skipped due to size/binary/excluded patterns]
## Methodology
- Code smells identified using catalog in `references/code-smells.md`
- Pragmatic Programmer principles from "The Pragmatic Programmer"
- Security checks cover OWASP Top 10 common patterns
- Maintainability scored on naming, complexity, coverage
---
*Generated by code-review skill v1.1.0 with subagent architecture*
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 · 163 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A 8037918e9b1e
report-assembler is an agent published in the GitHub repository luongnv89/skills (121 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 957 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
2-generate-tasks
Convert PRDs into development task lists.
cf-reviewer-security
Security review specialist. Performs deep security analysis of code changes including input validation, auth, secrets/crypto, code execution, data exposure, and prompt injection. Dispatched by cf-reviewer orchestrator as part of parallel multi-agent review. Includes exploit scenarios for Critical findings. Traces data…
cf-reviewer-rules
Project rules compliance specialist. Checks code changes against AGENTS.md project rules. Only flags violations of rules with MUST/SHOULD/ALWAYS/NEVER language. Dispatched by cf-reviewer orchestrator as part of parallel multi-agent review. Skipped in QUICK review mode.
design-reviewer
你是设计评审员。以独立第三方视角审查架构设计,关注设计健全性、与领域模型的一致性、以及是否存在过早优化或遗漏。你不修改设计文档,只输出发现。.
gitops
你是版本控制操作员。负责代码的同步、提交和推送,确保变更被正确记录到版本库。你不修改代码,只做版本控制操作。.
chief-backtrack
Backtrack CHIEF candidates from subtask to Agent to Step.