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 ArcticFox2029/chamnan --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ArcticFox2029/chamnanWrote 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/arcticfox2029/chamnan/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/arcticfox2029/chamnan/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/arcticfox2029/chamnan/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/arcticfox2029/chamnan/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/arcticfox2029/chamnan/review.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 | $0.00051 | $0.00871 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00348 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00174 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00087 |
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 — 69 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review it against the repository, not just against the diff
A diff shows what changed. It cannot show what depends on it, what broke here last time, or what this repository has already decided about it. Those are the four things worth saying, and three of them are one command.
chamnan-impact <each changed file>
That answers who imports it, which tests cover it, and which threads name it. Run it per changed file, not once for the change.
Size first. If the change is more than about 400 changed lines, say so before anything else and review it in parts, one coherent group of files at a time. Defect detection measured at 87% for reviews of 1-100 lines falls to 28% above 1,000 — a review of a large change finds less, and says it found everything. The same goes for a change that mixes a rename or move with a change in behaviour: say so, and review the behaviour on its own — reviewers of a tangled change reported six false positives against one for the same change split in two.
The four signals, and what each one is for
1 · Who breaks. The import graph. Say the number and name the surprising ones — "six call sites, and two are in hooks that run on every tool call" is a review comment. "This file is imported" is not.
2 · Which tests cover it. From the same output. If a changed file has none, that is the finding — say so plainly, once, without turning it into a lecture about coverage.
3 · What broke here before. Look for a 🐛 marker on or near the changed lines. This project
writes the defect record at the line it was fixed on, so a diff that touches one is touching a line
somebody already got wrong. A change that reverts a 🐛 line is the single most valuable thing a
review can catch, and no diff-only reviewer can see it.
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 Changed e93c02c3096b
- 12d ago Changed · +11 lines 4c1565d0fb4a
- 14d ago First seen · 58 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 685aa1eb14f6
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ArcticFox2029/chamnan (9 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 871 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-23.
Other skills, from other repositories
claude-code-bash-patterns
Claude Code Bash tool patterns with hooks, automation, git workflows. Use for PreToolUse hooks, command chaining, CLI orchestration, custom commands, or encountering bash permissions, command failures, security guards, hook configurations.
cloudflare-workers-ci-cd
Complete CI/CD guide for Cloudflare Workers using GitHub Actions and GitLab CI. Use for automated testing, deployment pipelines, preview environments, secrets management, or encountering deployment failures, workflow errors, environment configuration issues.
code-review
Code review practices with technical rigor and verification gates. Use for receiving feedback, requesting code-reviewer subagent reviews, or preventing false completion claims in pull requests.
simplify
Use when the user says "simplify this diff" or asks for a compression pass over a change-set. Not for dead-code sweeps: use deslop.
make-pr-easy-to-review
Use when a human explicitly asks to reshape or annotate one pull request for review. Don't use for pushing the rewritten branch or mutating any remote.
misuzu
Respond to PR review comments semi-automatically. Fetches all review threads and comments, splits them into logical units, fixes and commits one unit at a time, then replies and resolves review threads. Use when the user wants to address PR review feedback or respond to review comments.