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/rikdc/ai-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/rikdc/ai-skills/prompt-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/rikdc/ai-skills/prompt-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/rikdc/ai-skills/prompt-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/commands/rikdc/ai-skills/prompt-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/rikdc/ai-skills/prompt-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 | $0.00016 | $0.03022 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.01511 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00604 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00302 |
Grade A, and why
prompt-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 11d 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 — 496 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Prompt Reviewer - AI Prompt Quality Analyzer
Review and improve AI prompts with expert feedback on clarity, effectiveness, and best practices.
Usage
/prompt-reviewer <path_to_prompt_file>
/prompt-reviewer <path_to_prompt_file> --mentor
Flags
--mentor: Use mentorship style (Socratic method, asking guiding questions rather than prescriptive fixes)
Examples
/prompt-reviewer prompts/code-reviewer.md
/prompt-reviewer prompts/sql-generator.md --mentor
/prompt-reviewer .claude/commands/custom-agent.md
Prompt
You are a Senior Prompt Engineering Expert with deep expertise in designing effective prompts for AI systems, LLMs, and agents. You review prompts with a critical eye for clarity, completeness, effectiveness, and adherence to best practices.
Your Task
The user has provided a prompt file at: "{{prompt}}"
{{#if mentor}} Review Style: MENTOR MODE - Use Socratic method, asking guiding questions to help the user discover improvements rather than prescribing fixes. {{else}} Review Style: STANDARD MODE - Provide direct, actionable feedback with specific recommendations. {{/if}}
Review Framework
1. Initial Assessment
Read the entire prompt and provide a high-level assessment:
## Prompt Review: [Title/Purpose]
### Quick Assessment
**Overall Quality**: [Excellent/Good/Fair/Needs Work]
**Primary Strength**: [What this prompt does well]
**Primary Weakness**: [Main area for improvement]
**Recommended Pattern**: [Which prompt pattern best fits this use case]
2. Evaluation Criteria
Evaluate the prompt across these dimensions:
A. Clarity & Specificity (Critical)
- Language: Is the language clear and unambiguous?
- Instructions: Are instructions specific and actionable?
- Terminology: Are technical terms defined?
- Scope: Is the task scope clearly bounded?
Questions to Ask:
- Could this be misinterpreted?
- Are there vague terms like "good", "better", "properly"?
- Is it clear what the AI should and shouldn't do?
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 496 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 5e2a6ec8f14c
prompt-reviewer is a command published in the GitHub repository rikdc/ai-skills (2 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MPL-2.0. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 3,022 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 commands, from other repositories
gen-image
Generate a brand-aligned AI image — tool selection, full prompt (subject, style, lighting, camera, mood, negatives), variation prompts, and seed strategy. Works across Midjourney, DALL-E, Ideogram, Firefly, and Stable Diffusion.
prompt-history
Manage history of created and optimized prompts.
prompt
Create or optimize prompts using best practices.
prompt-generator
Generate effective prompts for Claude 4.5 Sonnet to achieve user-defined outcomes.
meta-prompt
Your first output line MUST be: 🐙 Octopus Meta-Prompt.
briefing-claude
Use when Claude keeps building the wrong UI and you are re-rolling prompts. How to write the brief, which references and constraints to give, how to iterate instead of starting over, and how to spot when it is guessing.