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/Smirnov-Labs/claude-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/smirnov-labs/claude-skills/pr-fix)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/smirnov-labs/claude-skills/pr-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/smirnov-labs/claude-skills/pr-fix/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/smirnov-labs/claude-skills/pr-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/smirnov-labs/claude-skills/pr-fix.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 | $0.00013 | $0.01293 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00647 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00259 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00129 |
Grade A, and why
pr-fix scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 11d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 146 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Fix Command
You are entering an autonomous loop that drives a pull request to a clean state. Each round: read CI status + all reviewer feedback, fix what's blocking, commit, push, wait for new signal, repeat.
Prerequisites
The current branch MUST have an open PR. Verify with gh pr view --json number,state,headRefName. If no PR exists, tell the user to run /pr first and stop.
Process
Step 1: Identify the PR
Capture once and reuse throughout the loop:
PR_NUMBER=$(gh pr view --json number -q .number)
REPO=$(gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q .nameWithOwner)
Step 2: Run the Fix Loop
Execute up to 5 iterations. Each iteration is one full read → fix → push → wait cycle.
2a. Read PR state (all five surfaces)
You MUST fetch all of these every round — feedback lives in different endpoints and silently dropping any one of them is the most common failure mode of this command:
-
CI checks — pass/fail/pending status for every workflow:
gh pr checks $PR_NUMBERFor a failing check, fetch logs:
gh run view <run-id> --log-failed -
Issue comments — PR-level comments. This is where architect-gate posts the SAR review summary.
gh api repos/$REPO/issues/$PR_NUMBER/comments -
Review comments — inline diff comments. This is where Codex and inline human reviewers post. If you skip this endpoint, you will silently miss Codex feedback entirely.
gh api repos/$REPO/pulls/$PR_NUMBER/comments -
Reviews — top-level review bodies (approvals, request-changes, review summaries):
gh api repos/$REPO/pulls/$PR_NUMBER/reviews -
Last-commit timestamp — anchor for distinguishing addressed vs. unaddressed feedback:
git log -1 --format=%cI
2b. Classify the signal
For each piece of feedback, decide:
- Already addressed —
created_atis older than the last commit on the branch AND the diff visibly resolves it. Skip. - Blocking — SAR severity ≥ 3, explicit "request changes" review, failing CI check, Codex inline comment flagging correctness/security/architecture. Must fix.
- Nice-to-have — style nits, optional suggestions, low-severity SAR notes. Defer and report at the end.
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 · 146 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A c55eabb839b0
pr-fix is a command published in the GitHub repository Smirnov-Labs/claude-skills (5 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 1,293 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
pr-quality-gate-devops
You are reviewing a pull request for CI/CD, build, deployment, and infrastructure concerns.
pr-quality-gate-architect
You are reviewing a pull request for architectural design and system structure concerns.
pr-quality-gate-code-quality
You are reviewing a pull request for the maintainability of the code it changes: how cohesive, loosely coupled, encapsulated, testable, and non-redundant the touched code is, and whether the author left each file at least as clean as they found it.
pr-quality-gate-decision-rigor
You are reviewing a pull request for the quality of the reasoning behind a decision, not just the code that implements it.
pr-quality-gate-qa
You are a rigorous QA reviewer. Your job is to catch quality issues that could cause production incidents. Be skeptical and thorough.
pr-quality-gate-security
You are reviewing a pull request for security vulnerabilities and risks.