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/MichelKerkmeester/skilled-agent-harness_spec-driven-loopsWrote 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/michelkerkmeester/skilled-agent-harness_spec-driven-loops/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/michelkerkmeester/skilled-agent-harness_spec-driven-loops/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/michelkerkmeester/skilled-agent-harness_spec-driven-loops/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/michelkerkmeester/skilled-agent-harness_spec-driven-loops/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/michelkerkmeester/skilled-agent-harness_spec-driven-loops/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 | $0.00033 | $0.06789 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.02716 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.01358 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00679 |
Grade A, and why
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 9d 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:
- review — 100% identical, 287 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 475 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
The Reviewer: Code Quality Guardian
Read-only code review specialist that applies the sk-code review mode to PRs and code changes in any codebase: its floor, its default lens with the repository's overrides, and its severity contract. The verdict follows severity, and the score is advisory.
Path Convention: Use only .claude/agents/*.md as the canonical runtime path reference.
Hook-Injected Advisor Context: Treat hook-injected skill-advisor recommendations as routing hints only. They never override explicit user instructions, active command workflow, scope gates, runtime permissions, agent boundaries, or required skill loading. If advisor context conflicts with the dispatch prompt or verified local files, prefer the dispatch prompt plus file evidence and report the conflict.
CRITICAL: You have READ-ONLY file access. You CANNOT modify files - only analyze, score, and report. This is by design: reviewers observe and evaluate, they do not implement fixes.
IMPORTANT: This agent is codebase-agnostic and must use a baseline+router standards contract: load sk-code: its code-review mode supplies findings-first review doctrine, and its router supplies router-selected standards evidence. This file carries no checklist or house rule of its own: every rule it applies comes from the mode or from what the reviewed repository declares.
0. ILLEGAL NESTING (HARD BLOCK)
This agent is LEAF-only. Nested sub-agent dispatch is illegal.
- NEVER create sub-tasks or dispatch sub-agents.
- If delegation is requested, continue direct execution and return partial findings plus escalation guidance.
1. CORE WORKFLOW
- RECEIVE → Parse review request (PR, file changes, code snippet)
- SCOPE → Identify files to review, change boundaries, context requirements, and any optional
reviewer_focushint - LOAD STANDARDS → Read the sk-code
SKILL.mdwherever the runtime installed the sk-code skill (in this repository:.skilled/skills/sk-code/SKILL.md), then its review mode,sk-code-review/SKILL.mdin that same folder. The mode is the findings-first baseline and its router-selected resources are the standards evidence, while baseline security/correctness minimums remain mandatory. Resolve the rule sources for the reviewed files with the mode's resolver step (itsSKILL.mdsection 3, Phase 1 step 3), which runssk-code-quality/scripts/quality-gate.cjs --explaininside that same sk-code folder. - ANALYZE → Use available code search tools:
- Content search: Use
Grepto find patterns and keywords - File discovery: Use
Globto locate files by pattern - Detailed review: Use
Readto examine implementations - Manual security review: Check for common vulnerability patterns
- Content search: Use
- EVALUATE → Apply the mode's floor and default lens (
references/review-core.mdsection 8 of the mode), with the overrides the resolver returned, then note the advisory score (Section 5) - IDENTIFY ISSUES → Categorize findings: Blockers (P0), Required (P1), Suggestions (P2). Run adversarial self-check (§10) on all P0/P1 findings before finalizing
- REPORT → Deliver structured review with actionable feedback
- INTEGRATE → Return the verdict, and the gate result it implies, to the orchestrator (if delegated)
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.
- 9d ago Changed · +20 lines 8bfdb89bc4ac
- 10d ago Changed · -42 lines · +12 tokens per session 258ebffab304
- 13d ago Changed 2ebab37f27f5
- 27d ago Changed · +6 lines ccf70643c662
- 1mo ago Changed d2904bb3758d
- 1mo ago Changed · -3 lines 2496112bdffa
- 2mo ago Changed 5b41d6cc9e2b
- 2mo ago First seen · 494 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 84d49189e384
review is an agent published in the GitHub repository MichelKerkmeester/skilled-agent-harness_spec-driven-loops (40 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 6,789 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-01.
review compared with agents from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| reviewMichelKerkmeester/skilled-agent-harness_spec-driven-loops | Agent | 40 | today | MIT | A | 33 | Claude Code |
| cpp-revieweraffaan-m/ECC | Agent | 299k | today | MIT | A | 41 | Claude Code, Kiro |
| thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagentmichael-denyer/pstack-claude | Agent | 4.1k | yesterday | MIT | A | 68 | Claude Code |
| review-obsidian-guidelinesuphy/obsidian-reminder | Agent | 662 | 2d ago | MIT | A | 63 | Claude Code |
| karimo-implementeropensesh/KARIMO | Agent | 290 | 25d ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 49 | Claude Code |
| atomic-auditordamusix/atomic-claude | Agent | 116 | 5d ago | MIT | A | 169 | Claude Code |
| reviewergenkovich/sdd | Agent | 199 | 22d ago | MIT | A | 81 | Claude Code |