Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to arklexai/Agent-First-Organization. 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/arklexai/Agent-First-Organization/main/.claude/skills/review-pr/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/arklexai/Agent-First-OrganizationWrote 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/arklexai/agent-first-organization/review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/arklexai/agent-first-organization/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/arklexai/agent-first-organization/review-pr/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/arklexai/agent-first-organization/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/arklexai/agent-first-organization/review-pr.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 | $0.00010 | $0.00424 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00212 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00085 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00042 |
Grade A, and why
review-pr 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 10d 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.
What it actually says
Review PR
Review a PR for functional correctness and project conventions. Focus on logic, architecture, and behavior. Formatting issues are caught by CI (ruff, pre-commit) and do not need manual review.
Steps
1. Load PR context
gh pr view $ARGUMENTS --json title,body,files,additions,deletions
gh pr diff $ARGUMENTS
2. Validate PR title and description
- Title matches Conventional Commits regex, under 72 chars
- Description sections meet word minimums (Summary 5w, Description 10w, Tests 10w)
- These are also CI-enforced, so flag only if CI somehow missed them
3. Review functional changes
Focus on:
- Logic correctness: does the code do what the PR claims?
- Edge cases: are error paths handled?
- API changes: are they backwards compatible or properly marked as breaking?
- Security: no hardcoded secrets, no unsanitized input in dangerous contexts
- Performance: any obvious inefficiencies?
5. Check scope
- Single concern per PR
- Flag unrelated changes bundled together
6. Check test coverage
- New behavior should have tests
- Coverage minimum is 45%. Flag large additions without tests.
Output
## Summary
One-sentence assessment.
## Findings
- List issues grouped by severity (blocking, suggestion, nit)
## Checklist
- [ ] Title matches Conventional Commits
- [ ] Description sections meet word minimums
- [ ] Functional correctness verified
- [ ] Tests cover new/changed code
- [ ] No secrets in diff
End with: APPROVED, CHANGES REQUESTED, or NEEDS DISCUSSION.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 68 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 1f707f2decac
review-pr is a skill published in the GitHub repository arklexai/Agent-First-Organization (699 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 424 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
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…