Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to agno-agi/agentos-docker. 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/agno-agi/agentos-docker/main/.agents/skills/review-and-improve/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/agno-agi/agentos-dockerWrote 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/agno-agi/agentos-docker/review-and-improve)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/agno-agi/agentos-docker/review-and-improve"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/agno-agi/agentos-docker/review-and-improve/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/agno-agi/agentos-docker/review-and-improve"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/agno-agi/agentos-docker/review-and-improve.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 | $0.00063 | $0.01240 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00496 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00248 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00124 |
Grade A, and why
review-and-improve 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 today.
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.
Copies of this mod
2 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- review-and-improve — 98% identical, 0 lines differ
- review-and-improve — 98% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 98 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review and Improve
Review the requested scope against AGENTS.md and the actual implementation. When comparing with a branch or PR, record the base and head SHAs, and distinguish committed changes from local edits. A review-only request stays read-only. For a review-and-improve request, correct clear documentation and link errors within scope; report behavior changes separately unless the user has authorized their repair.
1. Establish the scope
Inspect the working tree before editing and preserve concurrent changes. Review the named
files first. A repository-wide pass covers README.md, AGENTS.md, example.env, skills,
app/, agents/, teams/, db/, evals/, scripts/, and build/deployment configuration.
Include user-added workflows or other directories when present. Exclude environments,
caches, generated files and Git internals from content scans. Do not print env-file values.
A running API is not required for the source review. Establish whether development uses Compose or the host API before attempting runtime checks; use the matching README commands. If a runtime is unavailable or belongs to another checkout, continue the source review and report the runtime verification gap.
2. Compare declarations, documentation and behavior
| Check | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Application agents and teams are deliberately registered, with stable IDs | Source declarations, app/main.py, app/config.yaml |
| Framework-owned components stay in Agno | OSManager(...), CompanyConfig(...), installed framework source |
| Shared resources and Studio capabilities match documentation | app/registry.py, db/, AgentOS registration |
| Configuration names, defaults and prerequisites agree | Environment reads, example.env, README, Compose, deployment scripts |
| Documented commands and file paths work | Scripts, skills, CLI help and installed signatures |
| Skills remain discoverable and their routing is coherent | Frontmatter, relative links, .claude/skills, CLAUDE.md |
| Eval targets, tool names and CLI examples exist | evals/cases.py, evals/__main__.py, installed Agno eval APIs |
| Sandbox documentation matches execution and persistence requirements | app/sandbox.py, agents/engineers.py, Dockerfile, README |
| MCP claims match the exposed interface and authentication behavior | app/interfaces.py, app/main.py, scripts/mcp_check.sh |
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.
- today Changed · -2 lines 54fc3998ab51
- 3d ago Changed faec2727f57d
- 6d ago Changed · +22 lines · -1 tokens per session 3e4ef02ee9e5
- 2mo ago First seen · 78 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A ef46731bffeb
review-and-improve is a skill published in the GitHub repository agno-agi/agentos-docker (14 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 1,240 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
code-quality
Comprehensive code review for Java - clean code principles, API contracts, null safety, exception handling, and performance. Use when user says "review code", "refactor", "check API", or before merging changes.
code-review
Review a diff against its acceptance criteria in four segments (convention adherence, bug scan, historical-context regressions, test-coverage gaps) as a NON-implementing agent. Findings are sorted by severity, each with file:line + a failure scenario. A planted defect must be caught; a clean diff must not be…
design-review
Five-dimension design audit (frontend UI/UX · server data-model & flow · endpoint spec · daemon-runtime/SDK & local-cache-first · built-in skill/agent-role), executed by a NON-implementing agent. Every dimension gets a verdict; N/A only with a stated reason. A dimension the design silently skipped must be surfaced as…
codebase-design
Design maintainable module interfaces, review scoped code changes, and simplify implementations with behavioral verification. Use for code review, cleanup, testability, and module design work.
lint
Lint and format Kurtosis Starlark files. Check syntax, validate docstrings, and auto-format .star files. Use when writing or reviewing Starlark packages to ensure code quality.
prismer-github
GitHub via gh CLI: PRs, issues, reviews, repos, auth.