Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to agno-agi/agentos-modal. 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-modal/main/.agents/skills/review-and-improve/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/agno-agi/agentos-modalWrote 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-modal/review-and-improve)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/agno-agi/agentos-modal/review-and-improve"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/agno-agi/agentos-modal/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-modal/review-and-improve"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/agno-agi/agentos-modal/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.
This is a copy
98% identical to review-and-improve — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
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 3ea38666eeef
review-and-improve is a skill published in the GitHub repository agno-agi/agentos-modal (3 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. It is 98% identical to review-and-improve, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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.