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 adriannoes/awesome-agentic-ai --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/adriannoes/awesome-agentic-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/adriannoes/awesome-agentic-ai/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/adriannoes/awesome-agentic-ai/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/adriannoes/awesome-agentic-ai/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/adriannoes/awesome-agentic-ai/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/adriannoes/awesome-agentic-ai/review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00044 | $0.00783 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00392 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00157 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00078 |
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 11d 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 — 103 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Playwright Tests
Systematically review Playwright test files for anti-patterns, missed best practices, and coverage gaps.
Input
$ARGUMENTS can be:
- A file path: review that specific test file
- A directory: review all test files in the directory
- Empty: review all tests in the project's
testDir
Steps
1. Gather Context
- Read
playwright.config.tsfor project settings - List all
*.spec.ts/*.spec.jsfiles in scope - If reviewing a single file, also check related page objects and fixtures
2. Check Each File Against Anti-Patterns
Load anti-patterns.md from this skill directory. Check for all 20 anti-patterns.
Critical (must fix):
waitForTimeout()usage- Non-web-first assertions (
expect(await ...)) - Hardcoded URLs instead of
baseURL - CSS/XPath selectors when role-based exists
- Missing
awaiton Playwright calls - Shared mutable state between tests
- Test execution order dependencies
Warning (should fix):
8. Tests longer than 50 lines (consider splitting)
9. Magic strings without named constants
10. Missing error/edge case tests
11. page.evaluate() for things locators can do
12. Nested test.describe() more than 2 levels deep
13. Generic test names ("should work", "test 1")
Info (consider):
14. No page objects for pages with 5+ locators
15. Inline test data instead of factory/fixture
16. Missing accessibility assertions
17. No visual regression tests for UI-heavy pages
18. Console error assertions not checked
19. Network idle waits instead of specific assertions
20. Missing test.describe() grouping
3. Score Each File
Rate 1-10 based on:
- 9-10: Production-ready, follows all golden rules
- 7-8: Good, minor improvements possible
- 5-6: Functional but has anti-patterns
- 3-4: Significant issues, likely flaky
- 1-2: Needs rewrite
4. Generate Review Report
For each file:
## <filename> — Score: X/10
### Critical
- Line 15: `waitForTimeout(2000)` → use `expect(locator).toBeVisible()`
- Line 28: CSS selector `.btn-submit` → `getByRole('button', { name: "submit" })`
### Warning
- Line 42: Test name "test login" → "should redirect to dashboard after login"
### Suggestions
- Consider adding error case: what happens with invalid credentials?
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 103 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 830d7e25e023
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository adriannoes/awesome-agentic-ai (57 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 783 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
mailagent
Temporary inboxes for agent signup QA — create disposable addresses, wait for verification email, extract OTP or magic links. Use when automating signup, login, or email verification without parsing HTML manually.
browser-qa
A browser-based quality check for deployed web pages and user flows. It uses browser automation to test rendering, navigation, forms, interactions, responsive behaviour, and accessibility-related issues.
reviewing-changes
Use when a review package asks you to review a plan step's change set (todo.startReview): you are the REVIEWER, not the author. How to judge an agent-written diff, file findings with addreviewcomment, and settle with exactly one reviewverdict.
reflecting-findings
Use when a reflection package hands you another agent's review findings to verify (before they become a fix request): you are the REFLECTOR, an independent skeptic. Judge each finding against the real code and settle it with reflectfinding — kept or refuted.
qa
Use to verify that code works correctly — browser-based testing with Playwright, native app testing with computer use, CLI testing, API testing, or root-cause debugging. Supports --quick, --standard, --thorough modes. Triggers on /qa.
e2e-testing
Use when writing or stabilizing Playwright tests that drive a real browser through multi-step journeys — durable locators, web-first assertions, storageState auth, trace/retries, and flakes that only bite in CI. NOT in-process component tests (that is testing-web), NOT WCAG auditing (that is accessibility), NOT the…