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 arch3rPro/dsh-skills --skill responding-to-review-on-a-stackgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/arch3rPro/dsh-skillsWrote 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/arch3rpro/dsh-skills/responding-to-review-on-a-stack)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/arch3rpro/dsh-skills/responding-to-review-on-a-stack"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/arch3rpro/dsh-skills/responding-to-review-on-a-stack/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/arch3rpro/dsh-skills/responding-to-review-on-a-stack"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/arch3rpro/dsh-skills/responding-to-review-on-a-stack.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 | $0.00071 | $0.00863 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00432 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00173 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00086 |
Grade A, and why
responding-to-review-on-a-stack 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 — 45 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Responding to Review on a Stack
A discipline for acting on review comments that span several PRs in a dependent stack (A ← B ← C …). It owns review-fix placement and propagation; pr-history-hygiene owns linkage checks and landing, and code-review owns finding the issues.
The defining constraint: a fix lands on the PR that introduced the issue, then flows up-stack — never downstream, where the introducing PR ships the unfixed code and the fix is hidden from its reviewer.
Ground rules
- One worktree per PR branch. Each PR's fixes happen in that PR's own worktree; parallel fixes never share a checkout.
- The stack object is authoritative. Base branches establish the expected dependency order; the platform's stack metadata proves it is recognized. Do not treat a matching branch chain as an official stack without checking that metadata.
- A fix lands on the introducing PR, then flows up-stack. When a comment on PR
Bpoints at codeBintroduced, fix it onBand propagate intoC— even ifCalso carries the file. - Each review fix remains a distinct commit. A later rebase may change its OID, but do not amend a reviewed fix out of the branch history. Amend only your own not-yet-pushed, not-yet-reviewed work.
- Choose merge-forward or rebase deliberately. Both are allowed after review. A rewritten push must be lease-protected and must abort rather than overwrite a concurrently advanced remote head; raw force is forbidden.
Resolve comments through the stack
- Triage every comment on the merits before acting: verify the claim against the code — a reviewer flagging the right symptom can still misdiagnose the cause.
- Map each accepted finding to its originating PR and fix it there.
- Propagate the fixed layer through every affected child in order — merge-forward (merge the fixed parent into the child, validate, continue upward) or a native cascading rebase (validate the rewritten layers, then publish).
- Trust but verify delegated fixes — a sub-agent's report describes intent, not necessarily what landed. Re-run the gates on the actual tree; prove a regression guard fails on the unfixed code.
- Reply in the review thread, not as a top-level comment, stating the fix and the current commit or head that carries it.
- After any rewritten push, re-read unresolved threads, approvals, mergeability, and checks. A force-pushed OID or outdated inline anchor is not current evidence that the finding remains resolved.
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 · 45 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A d29da1c2ce66
responding-to-review-on-a-stack is a skill published in the GitHub repository arch3rPro/dsh-skills (4 stars, last pushed 23d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 863 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
suede-code-review
Suede Labs AI findings-only code review with full context: changed files, callers, contracts, and deploy surface. Covers TypeScript, React, Next.js, database, Swift/iOS, OWASP, accessibility, SEO, observability, commit hygiene, and deploy risk, ranked P0-P3 with file:line evidence and a fix path. Use when asked to…
suede-code
Suede Labs AI combined code review and ship grade in one pass: findings with file:line evidence plus an A-F lane grade, Instant-F security triggers, OWASP checks, a deploy-safety gate, and fix briefs. Use when asked to review this, grade this, security-check this, is this safe to ship, or check this PR before merge …
suede-code-grader
Suede Labs AI blunt A-F ship grade for a code change across correctness, security and permissions, data and state, domain truth, UX and release behavior, tests and verification, and deploy readiness, with Instant-F triggers and evidence-based grade caps on auth, payment, migration, and public-API surfaces. Use when…
review-arch
Conduct a principal-level architecture review of a system, specification, diagram, or set of design decisions. Use when asked to review an architecture, evaluate a design, assess coupling/cohesion, check for anti-patterns, audit system boundaries, or produce an Architecture Review Board (ARB) style verdict. Also use…
review-impl
Review implementation changes for a given task against architectural standards. Use when reviewing a PR, evaluating recently committed code, assessing whether implementation changes are correct and architecturally sound, or when asked to 'review my changes', 'check this implementation', 'review what I built', 'is this…
survey
After building a feature (or evaluating a plan), verify it matches what was planned, respects the project's declared architecture and standards, and is production-ready. Reports issues clearly and routes broken behavior to dredge or contested judgment calls to watershed.