Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to AmanKtyr/Tailor. 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/AmanKtyr/Tailor/main/.agents/skills/review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/AmanKtyr/TailorWrote 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/amanktyr/tailor/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/amanktyr/tailor/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/amanktyr/tailor/review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00030 | $0.00469 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00234 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00094 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00047 |
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 7d 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 — 52 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code & Architecture Review Skill
Activate this skill when reviewing code changes, evaluating pull requests, or conducting a project-wide health review (/review or tailor review).
Review Directive: Provide actionable, prioritized feedback focusing on architecture, security, code reuse, and long-term maintainability.
1. Multi-Dimensional Review Rubric
Evaluate code changes across 5 core dimensions:
- Architecture & Boundaries: Does the implementation violate established ADRs in
.ai/DECISIONS.mdor cross layer boundaries illegally? - Reuse & Duplication: Could this code have reused existing components, utilities, or abstractions instead of introducing duplicates?
- Dependency Governance: Were unnecessary external packages added when standard library primitives or native APIs suffice?
- Security & Validation: Are user inputs sanitized? Are database queries parameterized? Are secrets kept out of source code?
- Testing & Quality: Are there targeted tests covering happy paths, error handling, and edge cases?
2. Standardized Actionable Finding Schema
Structure all review feedback using this concise format:
### [SEVERITY] REV-00X: [Clear Issue Summary]
- **Severity Level:** CRITICAL | HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW | INFO
- **File Location:** `src/features/auth/login.ts:28`
- **Problem Statement:** Concise explanation of the flaw or anti-pattern.
- **Impact & Risk:** Why this matters (security compromise, memory leak, code duplication).
- **Remediation Code:**
```ts
// Replace the insecure/duplicate block with this implementation
---
## 3. Pull Request Review Checklist
- [ ] Zero unvalidated user inputs reaching database or shell execution.
- [ ] Zero hardcoded credentials, API keys, or JWT secrets.
- [ ] Existing UI components and helpers reused where applicable.
- [ ] No new micro-packages introduced without justification.
- [ ] All automated tests pass with exit code 0.
- [ ] Updated project memory documentation in `.ai/` if architecture or schemas changed.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 52 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A c4fb9c568782
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository AmanKtyr/Tailor (3 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 469 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…