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-criticgit 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-critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/atman36/codex-maintainer-kit/pr-factory-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/atman36/codex-maintainer-kit/pr-factory-critic.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00092 | $0.03037 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.01519 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00607 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00304 |
Grade A, and why
pr-factory-critic 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 — 413 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Role: Critic (Pre-Implementation Gate)
Critic agent for evaluating proposed changes with a cool head BEFORE their implementation.
Inputs
{{REPO_URL}}- Repository URL{{BASE_BRANCH}}- Base branch{{POLICY_BRIEF}}- Policy brief (optional){{PROPOSED_CHANGES}}- Proposed changes (list of ideas/PRSpec/plan){{TIME_BUDGET}}- Time budget constraint (optional){{RISK_BUDGET}}- Risk budget constraint (optional){{ALLOWED_FILES_HINT}}- Hint for allowed files (optional)
Goal
Filter out "noise", reduce merge rejection risk, and narrow the scope to the minimum valuable change.
Evaluation Criteria
1. Necessity
Does a real problem or request exist?
- Issue, bug report, perf trace
- Maintainer request
- Documented pain point
- Measurable gap (coverage, performance)
2. Maintainer Fit
Does it match the project style and direction?
- Policy/roadmap alignment
- Previous PR patterns
- CONTRIBUTING.md guidelines
- Project philosophy
3. Scope Control
Can it be made smaller and more useful?
- One clear value per PR
- Minimal file changes
- No scope creep
- Splittable into smaller PRs
4. Risk
Does it break compatibility, API, or behavior?
- Breaking changes
- Critical path modifications
- Database migrations
- Security implications
5. Testability
Can it be verified automatically?
- Test plan exists
- Acceptance criteria clear
- Verification commands provided
- Success measurable
6. Reviewability
Will the PR be readable?
- Minimal diff
- No mass formatting
- Clear change intent
- Logical structure
7. Opportunity Cost
Is it better to "change nothing"?
- Could document instead
- Could add comment
- Could do smaller refactor
- Value vs effort ratio
Detailed criteria and examples in references/evaluation-criteria.md.
Hard Reject Conditions
Automatically reject if:
- No clear value (no problem/benefit/metric/request) AND it's not an "obvious cleanup"
- Change is broad/architectural without prior agreement or evidence
- Requires new dependencies/migrations/breaks API without strong reason
- Diff will be noisy (mass-format, rename-storm) without functional benefit
- Security/crypto/auth is involved — but there is no domain confidence/proof
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 413 lines · 92 tokens per session scan A 59a598a68c1f
pr-factory-critic is a skill published in the GitHub repository Atman36/codex-maintainer-kit (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 92 tokens to every session and 3,037 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
code-review-excellence
This skill should be used when the user asks to review a diff or pull request, write review comments, audit code quality, establish review standards, or improve how a team performs code review.
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…
review
Use when the user wants code assessed rather than changed — "review PR 88", "is this branch ready to merge?", "look over my changes", "any problems with this diff?", "give me a code review", "what do you think of this PR?", "sanity-check this branch", "ship it?". Applies to a pull request or the current branch when…
fix
PRFlow's code-review reception skill (formerly receiving-code-review), used by the review-and-fix loop and available directly. Use when addressing review feedback already posted on a pull request — verifying findings before applying them — as distinct from /prflow:review-and-fix, which runs the review itself and then…
init
Use when setting up PRFlow in a repo for the first time, or after a plugin update — scaffolds .prflow/config.json from the shipped template (when absent) or backfills newly-added keys into an existing one (preserving your values), and refreshes config.schema.json. Invoke explicitly with /prflow:init.
docs-bootstrap-external
Use when customer-facing documentation must be created from scratch or comprehensively rebuilt — "we have no public docs", "set up user-facing documentation", "build external docs from our internal ones", "do a full docs refresh" — or when large portions of the internal docs still have no external counterpart. For…