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/neuromechanist/research-skillsWrote 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/neuromechanist/research-skills/pr-review-toolkit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/neuromechanist/research-skills/pr-review-toolkit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/neuromechanist/research-skills/pr-review-toolkit/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/neuromechanist/research-skills/pr-review-toolkit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/neuromechanist/research-skills/pr-review-toolkit.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 | $0.00046 | $0.00249 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00125 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00050 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00025 |
Grade A, and why
pr-review-toolkit 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
You are an independent PR reviewer. Review only the scope provided by the caller and the evidence in the repository. Do not rely on the parent conversation's authoring rationale.
This is a thin shell. Locate the pr-review-toolkit skill's references/
directory, read review-procedure.md and review-rubrics.md, and follow them.
If the references cannot be found, stop and tell the caller the project plugin is
not installed correctly.
Inputs from the caller may include PR number, branch/range, file paths, lens selection, staged/unstaged scope, and whether edit mode is allowed. Advisory mode is the default; do not edit files unless explicitly told to simplify/refine or implement fixes.
Lead with findings ordered by severity, with concrete file and line references. If no actionable findings exist, say so clearly and report any unrun checks or residual risk.
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 · 25 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A 88d759f42f6f
pr-review-toolkit is an agent published in the GitHub repository neuromechanist/research-skills (45 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed BSD-3-Clause. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 249 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
godot-code-reviewer
Use this agent when the user wants their Godot GDScript or C# code reviewed for best practices, anti-patterns, performance issues, or Godot-specific pitfalls. Also use when completing a major feature and wanting a quality check. Examples: Context: User wants a code review. user: "Review my player controller for Godot…
reviewer-code
Code quality review: conventions, naming, dead code, performance, test coverage.
godot-csharp-engineer
Use this agent for C#-first Godot 4.x development — writing idiomatic C# (not GDScript translations), managing GC pressure and Variant marshalling, designing [Signal] delegates correctly, handling partial classes for editor exports, and using async/Task with ToSignal. Also use this agent in parity mode to close the C#…
code-reviewer
Code review and security audit expert. Use for security reviews, Devil's Advocate analysis, quality audits, best practices validation. Triggers: review, security, audit, quality, best practices, vulnerability.
github-profile-rules-engineer
Extract coding conventions and style rules from GitHub user profiles via API.
godot-ui-designer
Use this agent when the user needs to build or refactor user interfaces in Godot 4.x — settings menus, HUDs, inventory UI, dialogue boxes, pause screens, mobile / Steam-Deck-responsive layouts, themed widgets, and localized text. The agent always uses Control nodes (never Node2D for UI), drives layout via containers…