Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to abuango/pos-ai. 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/abuango/pos-ai/main/.claude/skills/api-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/abuango/pos-aiWrote 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/abuango/pos-ai/api-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/abuango/pos-ai/api-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/abuango/pos-ai/api-review/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/abuango/pos-ai/api-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/abuango/pos-ai/api-review.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 | $0.00056 | $0.01258 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00503 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00252 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00126 |
Grade A, and why
api-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 2mo 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 — 149 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
API Review Skill
Setup
Before starting: check .handoff/sessions/ for active sessions, read context status.yaml, run git status. Follow .rules/universal.md (Plan -> Approve -> Execute).
You are reviewing API design for consistency, correctness, and adherence to REST best practices. APIs are contracts — once published, they're hard to change.
Process
Step 1: Discover Endpoints
- Find route files — Look for:
- Laravel:
routes/api.php,routes/web.php - Express/Fastify:
routes/,src/routes/ - Next.js:
app/api/,pages/api/
- Laravel:
- List all endpoints — Method, path, controller, middleware
- Check for API versioning —
/api/v1/,/api/v2/patterns
Step 2: Review Naming Conventions
Check every endpoint against these rules:
- Nouns, not verbs —
/usersnot/getUsers - Plural resources —
/usersnot/user - Kebab-case for multi-word —
/user-preferencesnot/userPreferences - Nested resources for relationships —
/users/{id}/ordersnot/user-orders - Consistent ID parameter naming —
{id}or{userId}but not mixed - No trailing slashes —
/usersnot/users/ - No file extensions —
/usersnot/users.json
Step 3: Review HTTP Methods
- GET — Read only, no side effects, cacheable
- POST — Create new resource, returns 201 + Location header
- PUT — Full update (replace), idempotent
- PATCH — Partial update, only changed fields
- DELETE — Remove resource, returns 204 or 200
Common mistakes:
- POST for updates (should be PUT/PATCH)
- GET with side effects (should be POST)
- DELETE that returns the deleted resource without the client needing it
Step 4: Review Response Format
Check for consistent response structure:
// Success (single resource)
{
"data": { "id": "...", "type": "user", ... }
}
// Success (collection)
{
"data": [...],
"meta": { "total": 100, "page": 1, "per_page": 20 }
}
// Error
{
"error": {
"code": "VALIDATION_ERROR",
"message": "Human-readable message",
"details": [{ "field": "email", "message": "Required" }]
}
}
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 149 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A cb07332b2cb2
api-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository abuango/pos-ai (2 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 1,258 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
platform-apex-generate
Primary Apex authoring skill for class generation, refactoring, and review. ALWAYS ACTIVATE when the user mentions Apex, .cls, triggers, or asks to create/refactor a class (service, selector, domain, batch, queueable, schedulable, invocable, DTO, utility, interface, abstract, exception, REST resource). Use this skill…
flow-next-impl-review
Carmack-level implementation review of changes via the configured backend. Use when asked to review code or a diff in a flow-next repo.
flow-next-resolve-pr
Resolve PR review feedback. Fetches unresolved threads, triages, fixes, replies and resolves via GraphQL. Use when asked to address review comments.
api-contract-review
Use when auditing CloudBase cloud API wrappers, MCP tools, generated action metadata, or related docs for outdated or incorrect action names, parameters, casing, request shapes, or missing contract tests, especially during periodic quality review or before preparing corrective PRs.
ring:migrating-to-lib-observability
Migrating a Lerian Go app off lib-commons observability imports (deprecated shims or removed APIs) to lib-observability via a fixed mapping table, then bumps go.mod and validates the build; ring:backend-go applies the edits. Covers log/zap/runtime/assert, opentelemetry/tracing, HTTP middleware, context helpers, and…
ring:mapping-streaming-events
Mapping the eventable points in a Lerian Go service where lib-streaming should emit past-tense, durable, tenant-scoped business events, producing a PM-validated event catalog and instrumentation-map.json for ring:instrumenting-streaming-events. Three-pass discovery (Survey, Slice, Mark) with a scope fence and delivery…