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 skills add 0xku/kon --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/0xku/konWrote 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/skills/0xku/kon/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/0xku/kon/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/0xku/kon/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 5.1 | $0.00011 | $0.00866 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00433 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00173 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00087 |
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 7d 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 — 73 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review the requested code changes as if you are reviewing another engineer's PR.
User-provided target or constraints (honor these): $ARGUMENTS
Target selection
- If no target is provided, review the current code changes: staged, unstaged, and untracked files.
- If the user provides a base branch, review the changes that would merge into that branch. Find the merge base and inspect the diff from that commit.
- If the user provides a commit SHA, review only the changes introduced by that commit.
- If the user provides a PR number, PR URL, or text like
PR#68 feat/headless-mode "feat: add non-interactive prompt mode", assume the GitHub CLI is available. Usegh pr viewto inspect PR metadata, resolve the base/head branches, fetch as needed, compute the merge base, and review the PR diff. Do not checkout a different branch unless the user explicitly asks or confirms. - For PRs, do not assume the head branch exists on
origin; it may live on a contributor fork. Prefergh pr checkout --detach <number>only if checkout is acceptable, or fetch the head repository/ref reported bygh pr view --json headRepository,headRefNameinto a temporary remote/ref before diffing. - For a PR scenario such as
/review PR#68 feat/headless-mode "feat: add non-interactive prompt mode", use the PR number/title/branch as hints, verify them withgh pr view 68, then review the code changes relative to the PR base branch.
Review rubric
Only report issues the original author would likely fix if they knew about them.
Flag a finding only when:
- it meaningfully affects correctness, security, performance, reliability, or maintainability;
- it is discrete and actionable;
- it appears introduced by the reviewed change;
- you can identify the affected code path or user scenario;
- it is not merely a style preference, nit, or intentional behavior change.
Do not stop at the first issue. Return all qualifying findings. If there are no findings worth fixing, say so clearly.
Investigation guidance
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 73 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A 91f9fbe761a9
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository 0xku/kon (353 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 866 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.