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 45ck/skill-harness --skill review-ready-checkgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/45ck/skill-harnessWrote 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/45ck/skill-harness/review-ready-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/45ck/skill-harness/review-ready-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/45ck/skill-harness/review-ready-check/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/skills/45ck/skill-harness/review-ready-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/45ck/skill-harness/review-ready-check.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 | $0.00031 | $0.00158 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00079 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00032 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00016 |
Grade A, and why
review-ready-check 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 10d 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
Use this skill before opening or updating a pull request.
Checklist:
- confirm the intended change set and user-visible outcome
- run or name the relevant validation evidence
- inspect diff shape for unrelated churn, hidden follow-up work, or missing tests
- summarize residual risk, especially where coverage is incomplete
- produce a short reviewer-facing summary of what changed and what to focus on
Review-ready means:
- the change has a clear purpose
- validation evidence exists and is specific
- known gaps are disclosed explicitly
- the reviewer does not need to reverse-engineer intent from the diff
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 22 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 72814c3df209
review-ready-check is a skill published in the GitHub repository 45ck/skill-harness (15 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 158 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
do-it-review
Use to assess requirements and implementation quality independently, or to resolve a batch of review findings.
code-review
Code review assistance with linting, style checking, and best practices.
code-review-excellence
This skill should be used when the user asks to review a diff or pull request, write review comments, audit code quality, establish review standards, or improve how a team performs code review.
cross-review
Verify an implementer's diff with an INDEPENDENT, different-vendor sub-agent (diff plus contract only); turn blocking issues into fix-tasks and loop until clean.
verify-implementation
A workflow that runs a project’s verification skills to produce a report on coding patterns, architecture rules, and project conventions. It is intended for work after implementation, before a pull request, or during code review.
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…