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/aneja5/forge-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/commands/aneja5/forge-skills/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/aneja5/forge-skills/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/aneja5/forge-skills/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/commands/aneja5/forge-skills/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/aneja5/forge-skills/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 | $0.00014 | $0.00192 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00077 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00038 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00019 |
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 2mo 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
Invoke the forge-skills:code-review-and-quality skill.
For each module touched in the change, check .forge/contracts/<module>.md:
- Input types match contract schema
- Output types match contract schema
- Every error type in the contract is handled
- Every invariant in the contract is enforced
Then review across all five axes:
- Contract compliance (see above)
- Correctness — acceptance criteria met, edge cases handled
- Readability — names, comments, function length
- Security — input validation, authn/authz, data exposure
- Performance — N+1 queries, blocking operations
Categorize each finding: [CRITICAL] / [IMPORTANT] / [SUGGESTION] Cite file:line for every finding. State a clear recommendation: APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / BLOCK.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 23 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 04a075233482
review is a command published in the GitHub repository aneja5/forge-skills (3 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 192 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
review
Harsh maintainability review of one PR. Comments, not patches. Do not merge.
release
Release manager for frontend and mobile. Writes App Store notes, user-facing changelog, flags stale docs and landing copy. Actions: notes | changelog | docs | sync.
fec-review
Conduct a standardized review of the frontend changes, specified files/directories, or the whole project, output a graded review report and save it as a Markdown file.
address
Address code review feedback — corroborate, validate, and implement changes from a review's final.md.
translate-review-to-single-human
Translate a multi-reviewer code review into a single human-voice GitHub PR comment.
map
Generate a Code Review Map to help navigate large, complex changesets.