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 ashfulcra/fulcra-tools --skill fulcra-agent-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ashfulcra/fulcra-toolsWrote 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/ashfulcra/fulcra-tools/fulcra-agent-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ashfulcra/fulcra-tools/fulcra-agent-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ashfulcra/fulcra-tools/fulcra-agent-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/ashfulcra/fulcra-tools/fulcra-agent-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ashfulcra/fulcra-tools/fulcra-agent-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00057 | $0.02906 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00023 | $0.01162 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00581 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00291 |
Grade A, and why
fulcra-agent-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 — 166 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Fulcra Agent Review
Enhances the fulcra-agent-teams skill with a
lightweight review handshake: an author requests review of an artifact, one or more reviewers leave
verdicts, and the overall state is folded deterministically. The single-file actions (request, verdict)
are prose over fulcra-api file + the teams inbox; the verdict tally is a coord-engine command
(folding multiple reviewers is a derived state — code, not eyeballing).
Where to start — the re-entrancy probes
Before requesting a review or leaving a verdict, probe where the handshake already stands. Enter at the
first probe that fails (per the repo's skill-quality pattern, docs/skill-quality-pattern.md);
requesting is a single-file write and a verdict is an overwrite (re-uploading your verdict file just
supersedes it), so re-entry never corrupts the tally:
| Probe (run in order) | Command | Passes when | If it fails, enter at |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine + auth usable? | coord-engine doctor <team> |
exits 0 and the last line is exactly doctor: healthy |
fix engine/auth first (see fulcra-agent-reconcile) — do NOT tally against a broken engine |
| Any reviews owed me? | coord-engine needs-me <team> --agent <me> |
NO [REVIEW] pending verdict: row prints for you — no pending_required entry names you (NON-mutating read) |
Leave a verdict — each printed [REVIEW] pending verdict: <slug> (required: …) row is an open obligation on you; use the exact verdict path echoed by review request (head-keyed PR rounds use verdicts/<head>--<required-token>.md; legacy/non-code reviews use verdicts/<required-token>.md), then verify + ack per Lifecycle step 2 |
| Known artifact's handshake state settled? | coord-engine review status <team> <slug> |
prints a line beginning review <slug> in team/<team>: ending in APPROVED or CHANGES (deterministic fold — never tally by hand) |
if it prints PENDING, the review is not settled — chase the awaiting required: reviewers per Lifecycle step 3 |
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.
- 7d ago Changed · +2 lines 9b6d17fe5439
- 8d ago Changed · +14 lines 3e2b8a5d50ec
- 1mo ago Changed 1481cdb4ce1e
- 1mo ago First seen · 150 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A 28dafd93f975
fulcra-agent-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ashfulcra/fulcra-tools (10 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 57 tokens to every session and 2,906 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
critical-code-reviewer
Rigorously review code or pull requests for correctness, security, accessibility, maintainability, tests, and edge cases. Use when users request a critical code review, want a guided walkthrough of findings, need implementer-facing feedback, or want to prepare, create, or submit a GitHub pull request review.
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
pr-description-writer
Redacta una descripción de pull request clara y estructurada a partir de un diff de git, resumen de rama o lista de commits. Úsalo cuando te pidan escribir una descripción de PR, redactar una solicitud de cambios o documentar cambios de código. Produce una descripción con resumen, motivación, cambios realizados, pasos…
pr-review
Comprehensive PR review across six dimensions — cost impact, environment drift, ownership gaps, SOC 2 compliance, deprecated API / version hygiene, and rollback feasibility. Each mode inspects the diff and current file state, reports findings with severity, and recommends concrete fixes. Use when preparing a PR for…
genshijin-review
A compact pull-request review format that writes one actionable finding per line in Japanese or English.
pr-review
Use when the user wants to deeply review a pull/merge request or a local diff — "review this PR", "grill the MR", "stress-test this diff", "deep-dive code review", "code review before merge", or when they name a PR/MR URL, number, branch, commit range (A..B/A...B), tag or SHA. Works on GitHub (gh), GitLab (glab), or a…