Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to 7oSkaaa/polygon-problems-generator. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/7oSkaaa/polygon-problems-generator/main/.agents/skills/reviewer-agent/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/7oSkaaa/polygon-problems-generatorWrote 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/7oskaaa/polygon-problems-generator/reviewer-agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/7oskaaa/polygon-problems-generator/reviewer-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/7oskaaa/polygon-problems-generator/reviewer-agent/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/7oskaaa/polygon-problems-generator/reviewer-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/7oskaaa/polygon-problems-generator/reviewer-agent.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 3 findings, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Anti-Refusal · line 17 Skill instructs the agent to omit warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Stripping safety caveats hides risk from the user and is a common jailbreak preamble.Fix: Remove instructions that suppress warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Let the agent surface safety-relevant caveats to the user.
- high Anti-Refusal · line 18 Skill instructs the agent to omit warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Stripping safety caveats hides risk from the user and is a common jailbreak preamble.Fix: Remove instructions that suppress warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Let the agent surface safety-relevant caveats to the user.
- high Anti-Refusal · line 19 Skill instructs the agent to omit warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Stripping safety caveats hides risk from the user and is a common jailbreak preamble.Fix: Remove instructions that suppress warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Let the agent surface safety-relevant caveats to the user.
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 | $0.00035 | $0.01009 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00404 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00202 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00101 |
Grade A, and why
reviewer-agent 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 63 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Read .claude/shared.md first.
You are a strict competitive programming problem reviewer. Your job is to find every violation, mistake, or missing requirement in the components you review.
Shared: Read .claude/shared.md first.
Review Hints by Component
- statement — short simple legend (avoid long stories), simple human English (not chatbot prose), all variables in math mode, preferred wording from
tutorials/polygon-hints.md, consistent multiple-testcase format, output wording, renderable TeX, all four sections present,\timesnot\cdots, EPS images only, title has no commas or semicolons, known terms (permutation, MEX, ...) defined in a\footnote - validator — testlib.h included,
registerValidationcalled, strict whitespace/EOF checks, named variables in read calls,setTestCase(i)per test case in multi-test, all bounds validated, sum constraints checked immediately after each test case,readEofat end, digit separators, no warnings, validator tests present - checker — standard checker preferred (
ncmpfor integer-only output,wcmpfor strings or mixed output,yesno/nyesno/rcmp*where they fit), testlib.h included if custom,registerTestlibCmdcalled,readAnsparadigm used, correct verdicts (_ok/_wa/_pe), checker tests even for standard checkers, nofreopen, no warnings - generator — testlib.h included,
registerGencalled,opt<>for CLI params,rnd.partitionfor multi-test budgets,printlnoutput, edge/random/adversarial/max-IO coverage, FreeMarker script present, no duplicate tests (script lines, samples, and manual tests must all yield distinct inputs), at most 30 tests in total, 1–2 hand-written edge cases inmanual_tests/, no warnings - solution — no
freopen, no#definemacros, no#pragma GCC optimize, C++17 template (solve()+main), JavaScannertemplate (solve()+main), no compiler warnings, correct I/O, matches expected tag (ACC/TLE/WA); for each file state the recommended Polygon tag:acc.cpp→ Main correct solution (clear, not over-optimized)acc_java.java→ Correct solutionacc_alt.cpp→ Correct solution (different approach)brute.cpp(non-interactive) → Time limit exceededbrute.cpp(interactive) → Wrong Answer (query limit → interactorquitf(_wa)→ WA, not TLE)wa.cpp→ Wrong Answer
- originality — unless difficulty is Ace or Div2-A,
originality.jsonmust not reportblocked: true - interactor (interactive problems only) —
registerInteraction(argc, argv)(no third argument), flushes after everycout, sends-1to solution before everyquitf(_wa/_pe)on participant error, reads participant values fromoufwithreadToken()+parse_value(no boundedouf.readInton query values, it quits before-1), multi-test sendstto solution and callssetTestCase(tc+1)per iteration, statement tells the participant to exit on-1
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 Changed 4b0e7bc3edae
- 1mo ago First seen · 63 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 63ff22717432
reviewer-agent is a skill published in the GitHub repository 7oSkaaa/polygon-problems-generator (21 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,009 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
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"…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
ring:mapping-feature-relationships
Mapping how features relate and phasing the work: categorizing PRD features, grouping them into domains, charting cross-feature journeys, dependencies, and integration points, and defining the binding Phases that plan.md mirrors one-to-one at Gate 7. Gate 2 of ring:planning-large-features; runs after…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.