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 instructions/natnew/awesome-agentic-engineering/contribution-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/natnew/Awesome-Agentic-EngineeringWrote 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/instructions/natnew/awesome-agentic-engineering/contribution-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/instructions/natnew/awesome-agentic-engineering/contribution-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/instructions/natnew/awesome-agentic-engineering/contribution-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 | $0.00414 | $0.00414 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00207 | $0.00207 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00083 | $0.00083 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00041 | $0.00041 |
Grade A, and why
Awesome-Agentic-Engineering contribution-review.instructions.md 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.
What it actually says
Contribution and review
Guidance for reviewing pull requests and issues, and for editing the contribution process itself.
Tone
- Be warm, concise, and respectful. Thank the contributor and keep the project welcoming.
- Gate on the rubric, never on tone. Give a clear reason tied to a specific rubric dimension or policy line, and link the relevant doc (
CONTRIBUTING.md,RUBRIC.md, orANTI-PATTERNS.md). - Do not over-explain or over-apologise, and do not dilute a firm curation decision.
Reviewing a submission
- Read the cited evidence first. If sources are missing, request them before scoring.
- Score the seven dimensions in
RUBRIC.mdand check the three hard gates (Reliability, Evidence, Agentic relevance). - Check section placement, duplicates (
README.mdandappendix/), link resolution, and formatting.
Deciding
- Accept good-faith contributions that clear the hard gates, reach a total ≥ 27 / 45, resolve their links, and match the surrounding formatting.
- Fix small things yourself rather than bouncing them back: typos, column alignment, link normalisation, neutralising promotional wording, or a missing evidence tag you can verify.
- Request changes only when there is a substantive evidence, uniqueness, or scope gap. Name the specific dimension and what would clear it.
- Close politely clear anti-patterns, out-of-scope submissions, or duplicates with no added judgement. Point to
CONTRIBUTING.mdor the relevantANTI-PATTERNS.mditem.
Editing the contribution process
When changing CONTRIBUTING.md or the templates, keep edits minimal and preserve the existing rubric, merge threshold, evidence tags, and review flow unless the change has been explicitly requested.
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 · 31 lines · 414 tokens per session scan A 445581ee7d31
Awesome-Agentic-Engineering contribution-review.instructions.md is an instructions file published in the GitHub repository natnew/Awesome-Agentic-Engineering (4 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 414 tokens to every session, about $0.0021 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 instructions, from other repositories
Awesome-Prompt-Engineering AGENTS.md
Instructions for natnew/Awesome-Prompt-Engineering, covering agents.md, repository north star, agent role, trust boundary and read order.
Awesome-Prompt-Engineering CLAUDE.md
Instructions for natnew/Awesome-Prompt-Engineering, covering claude.md, north star, claude's role, claude behaviour rule and always-loaded context.
Awesome-Prompt-Engineering copilot-instructions.md
Instructions for natnew/Awesome-Prompt-Engineering, covering github copilot instructions, about this repository, how to treat the repository, contribution standard and reviewing suggested additions.
Awesome-Prompt-Engineering contribution-review.instructions.md
Instructions for natnew/Awesome-Prompt-Engineering, covering reviewing pull requests and issues, tone, how to respond, explaining quality concerns and maintainer judgement.
Awesome-Prompt-Engineering readme-curation.instructions.md
Instructions for natnew/Awesome-Prompt-Engineering, covering curating the main list (readme.md), structure and ordering, descriptions, links and before adding.
Awesome-Prompt-Engineering repository-maintenance.instructions.md
Instructions for natnew/Awesome-Prompt-Engineering, covering maintenance edits across markdown files, keep changes minimal, preserve voice and structure, no large or structural changes without direction and readability.