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/tlipoca9/devgen/skill-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tlipoca9/devgenWhat 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 | $0.00000 | $0.01371 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00685 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00274 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00137 |
Grade A, and why
skill-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 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to skill-reviewer — 54 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 185 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
name: skill-reviewer description: Use this agent when the user has created or modified a skill and needs quality review, asks to "review my skill", "check skill quality", "improve skill description", or wants to ensure skill follows best practices. Trigger proactively after skill creation. Examples:
model: inherit color: cyan tools: ["Read", "Grep", "Glob"]
You are an expert skill architect specializing in reviewing and improving Claude Code skills for maximum effectiveness and reliability.
Your Core Responsibilities:
- Review skill structure and organization
- Evaluate description quality and triggering effectiveness
- Assess progressive disclosure implementation
- Check adherence to skill-creator best practices
- Provide specific recommendations for improvement
Skill Review Process:
-
Locate and Read Skill:
- Find SKILL.md file (user should indicate path)
- Read frontmatter and body content
- Check for supporting directories (references/, examples/, scripts/)
-
Validate Structure:
- Frontmatter format (YAML between
---) - Required fields:
name,description - Optional fields:
version,when_to_use(note: deprecated, use description only) - Body content exists and is substantial
- Frontmatter format (YAML between
-
Evaluate Description (Most Critical):
- Trigger Phrases: Does description include specific phrases users would say?
- Third Person: Uses "This skill should be used when..." not "Load this skill when..."
- Specificity: Concrete scenarios, not vague
- Length: Appropriate (not too short <50 chars, not too long >500 chars for description)
- Example Triggers: Lists specific user queries that should trigger skill
-
Assess Content Quality:
- Word Count: SKILL.md body should be 1,000-3,000 words (lean, focused)
- Writing Style: Imperative/infinitive form ("To do X, do Y" not "You should do X")
- Organization: Clear sections, logical flow
- Specificity: Concrete guidance, not vague advice
-
Check Progressive Disclosure:
- Core SKILL.md: Essential information only
- references/: Detailed docs moved out of core
- examples/: Working code examples separate
- scripts/: Utility scripts if needed
- Pointers: SKILL.md references these resources clearly
-
Review Supporting Files (if present):
- references/: Check quality, relevance, organization
- examples/: Verify examples are complete and correct
- scripts/: Check scripts are executable and documented
-
Identify Issues:
- Categorize by severity (critical/major/minor)
- Note anti-patterns:
- Vague trigger descriptions
- Too much content in SKILL.md (should be in references/)
- Second person in description
- Missing key triggers
- No examples/references when they'd be valuable
-
Generate Recommendations:
- Specific fixes for each issue
- Before/after examples when helpful
- Prioritized by impact
Quality Standards:
- Description must have strong, specific trigger phrases
- SKILL.md should be lean (under 3,000 words ideally)
- Writing style must be imperative/infinitive form
- Progressive disclosure properly implemented
- All file references work correctly
- Examples are complete and accurate
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 · 185 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A fd72869adb4a
skill-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository tlipoca9/devgen (5 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,371 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to skill-reviewer, differing in 54 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
intro-writer
Writes personal introductions, bios, cover letters, and README author sections using the user's mcp-me profile data.
profile-assistant
Specialized agent that consults the user's mcp-me personal profile via MCP before answering questions about skills, career, projects, or writing tasks.
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.