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 Atman36/codex-maintainer-kit --skill pr-factory-analystgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Atman36/codex-maintainer-kitWrote 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/atman36/codex-maintainer-kit/pr-factory-analyst)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/atman36/codex-maintainer-kit/pr-factory-analyst"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/atman36/codex-maintainer-kit/pr-factory-analyst/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/atman36/codex-maintainer-kit/pr-factory-analyst"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/atman36/codex-maintainer-kit/pr-factory-analyst.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 | $0.00107 | $0.01533 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00043 | $0.00613 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00307 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00153 |
Grade A, and why
pr-factory-analyst 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 1mo 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 — 204 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Role: Analyst
Find concrete, merge-worthy PR candidates through deep analysis.
Inputs
{{REPO_ROOT}}- Workspace path{{FOCUS}}- Analysis focus area (examples: docs, tests, bugfix, perf, refactor, ci, dx){{SCOUT_JSON}}- Optional Scout output for dynamic focus and config reuse
Goal
Produce up to 5 concrete PR candidates that are likely to be accepted.
Process
- Understand focus area: What type of improvements are we looking for?
- If
{{FOCUS}}is empty/auto, infer from Scout output. - If Scout indicates weak test posture (e.g., low coverage, missing tests, test-related blockers), switch focus to
tests.
- If
- Analyze codebase: Read relevant files, check coverage, find gaps
- Identify opportunities: Concrete improvements that maintainers will want
- Assess quality: Each candidate meets quality bar (necessity, scope, verifiability)
- Rank by merge probability: Prefer obvious wins over subjective improvements
For detailed quality criteria and examples, see references/candidate-quality.md.
Candidate Quality Bar
Each candidate must include:
Why Maintainers Will Want This
- User pain: Fixes actual user issue
- Correctness: Fixes bug or incorrect behavior
- Reliability: Improves stability or test coverage
- DX: Makes development easier or clearer
Where (Minimal Scope)
- Specific file paths
- Function/class/module names
- Estimated LOC (<100 preferred)
- Clear boundaries
How to Verify
- Exact commands to run
- Expected output
- Manual verification steps if needed
Risk Assessment
- Low/medium/high
- What could break
- Rollback plan if applicable
Rules
- Stack-agnostic: Follow repo conventions, don't impose your stack
- One PR = One Value: Each candidate should be independently mergeable
- Prefer low-risk wins: Docs, tests, small bugfixes, clearer errors, minor perf with proof
- Avoid high-risk changes: Mass formatting, big refactors, dependency changes, API breaks
- Schema-valid JSON payload: Build payload conforming to
ExecutionResult - Persist analysis JSON: Write payload to
{{ARTIFACT_DIR}}/analyst-<timestamp>.json - Chat output format: Return only
SAVED_JSON_PATH=<absolute_path_to_json> - Scope context explicitly: Return
data.related_filesto constrain downstream implementation context
What ships with it
3 files 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 204 lines · 107 tokens per session scan A dbefea37de17
pr-factory-analyst is a skill published in the GitHub repository Atman36/codex-maintainer-kit (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 107 tokens to every session and 1,533 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
code-that-fits-in-your-head
Software-engineering heuristics based on Mark Seemann's Code That Fits in Your Head (2021), updated for agent-driven development. Use when writing or reviewing code, refactoring accidental complexity or a Big Ball of Mud, controlling technical or architectural debt in generated code, designing APIs and invariants…
create-pr
Create pull requests following Sentry conventions. Use when opening PRs, writing PR descriptions, or preparing changes for review. Follows Sentry's code review guidelines.
git-pr-review
A read-only reviewer for GitHub pull requests, which are proposed code changes submitted for review. It produces an evidence-based report about whether a pull request should be merged.
codex-review
Professional code review with auto CHANGELOG generation, integrated with Codex AI.
challenge-resolve
Independently review and fix a bounded task through convergence rounds, with evidence-backed closure and explicit stop/remediation decisions. Use for existing implementations, features, problems, or diffs needing adversarial review and repair.
assess
Analyze issue/PR/problem before implementation; produce source-backed findings and measurable gates.