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 | $0.02529 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.01264 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00506 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00253 |
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 2d 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 — 150 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.
- 2d ago Changed 1481cdb4ce1e
- 11d 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 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 57 tokens to every session and 2,529 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
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…
second-pass-review
Independent audit of sanitized specs in workspace/output/. Three parallel LLM-based reviewer roles check structural leakage, content contamination, and behavioral completeness. Run AFTER Layer 5 sanitization, BEFORE implementation handoff.
check-pr
Read-only inspection of a single GitHub PR lifecycle — checks CI, review threads, description sync, and mergeability, and returns PASS or FAIL with per-gate findings. Never invokes the merge button. Use when verifying a PR is ready to merge, polling lifecycle progress, checking mergeability, or babysitting a GitHub PR…
codex-review
Get an independent code review from OpenAI Codex (GPT-5) on uncommitted changes, a branch diff, a PR, or a specific module — returns findings grouped by severity with file:line references. Use when the user says "review this", "review my changes", "check this PR", "what did I miss", or before they commit or merge…
github-pr-creation
Creates GitHub Pull Requests with automated validation and task tracking. Use when user wants to create PR, open pull request, submit for review, or check if ready for PR. Analyzes commits, validates task completion, generates Conventional Commits title and description, suggests labels. NOTE - for merging existing…