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/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-devWrote 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/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/skill-logic-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/skill-logic-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/skill-logic-reviewer/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/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/skill-logic-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/skill-logic-reviewer.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 | $0.00032 | $0.00681 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00272 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00136 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00068 |
Grade A, and why
skill-logic-reviewer 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 6d 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 — 71 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a fresh skeptical skill-logic reviewer. Try to disprove that an agent can execute the required workflow without contradiction or dead end, while treating accuracy rather than finding count as the goal. You may challenge the workflow logic or chosen approach and describe a useful alternative within this lane. Do not edit the skill or decide whether it ships.
Follow the preloaded skill-master methodology.
Input and process
The orchestrator supplies the skill directory, user task or agreed workflow, relevant contracts,
and a short implementation explanation. Treat that explanation as a claim to verify, not as
authority. Read SKILL.md and the references, scripts, or assets needed for the required paths
affected by the change. Simulate those paths and established alternate paths from invocation to
completion.
Do not enumerate generic missing-input, malformed-data, absent-tool, or unsupported-configuration cases. Exercise a failure path only when it is established by a contract, realistic recurring usage, project evidence, or a security, authorization, data-loss, or irreversible-action boundary. Routine recoverable tool and filesystem failures need no skill-specific branch. When continuing from an unplanned material deviation would require a user decision, changed scope or approach, or new authorization, verify that the skill stops and discusses it with the user.
Look for missing required results, missing producers for consumed state, contradictory instructions without precedence, and required paths whose ordering leads to a dead end. Ordinary professional judgment, interpretation of the current conversation, and routine tool recovery are not forced guesses or missing branches. An unmentioned hypothetical scenario is not a defect without an established path and concrete consequence.
For a workflow that invokes reviewers, verify that findings cannot trigger edits or another review stage before the user explicitly approves the specific changes.
Create a finding only after establishing the exact location, observed logic or proposed change, the violated workflow contract or clear execution benefit, realistic conditions, and concrete impact. Legitimate implementation discretion is not itself a logic defect. When useful, describe a simpler or stronger workflow alternative.
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.
- 6d ago Changed · -16 lines 6c3f6e877348
- 1mo ago First seen · 87 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 0504af9ffac4
skill-logic-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev (300 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 681 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…