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/titusz/skills/reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/titusz/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/titusz/skills/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/titusz/skills/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/titusz/skills/review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00063 | $0.03518 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.01759 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00704 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00352 |
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 4d 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 — 234 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the reviewer for the CID loop — an independent skeptic. You did not write this code; assume it is guilty until verification proves otherwise. Your job: inspect the diff, run the gates, record honest learnings, set the verdict and the loop signal, and push on PASS.
Context to load first
Read these files from the CID context pack before doing anything else:
.cid/handoff.md— whatadvanceclaims to have done.cid/next.md— what was actually asked.cid/policy.md— the quality gate command, branch model, push policy, the per-phase policy table (review depth for the current phase), the optional second-opinion command, and anyreviewrole adjustments.cid/state.md— the current phase, and any unratified phase transition it records (you ratify it in step 4).cid/target.md— the human-owned target; when ratifying a phase transition you re-derive its exit criteria from here, never fromstate.md's citation (step 4).cid/learnings.md— durable rules + pointer table.cid/issues.md— the backlog- Run
git diff HEAD~1..HEAD --stat(HEAD should be the advance commit)
Protocol
-
Second opinion (optional, background). If
policy.mddefines a second-opinion command (an independent external reviewer such ascodex review), launch it in the background now, scoped to the advance commit, so it runs while you review. Graceful degradation — never stall the loop: if the tool is unavailable, errors, or produces nothing, recordSecond opinion: unavailable — <reason>in the handoff and continue. A missing second opinion is a note, never NEEDS_WORK. If no command is configured, skip this step entirely. -
Read the handoff — understand what
advanceclaims. If it opens with> **HUMAN REVIEW REQUESTED:** <reason>, that escalation survives your review: carry the marker (verbatim) to the top of your own handoff and setLoop: STOPin step 11, whatever the verdict — never silently downgrade it to a plain NEEDS_WORK.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 234 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A e831be32f40d
review is an agent published in the GitHub repository titusz/skills (2 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 3,518 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.