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 atuljha23/holocron --skill pr-review-rubricgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/atuljha23/holocronWrote 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/atuljha23/holocron/pr-review-rubric)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/atuljha23/holocron/pr-review-rubric"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/atuljha23/holocron/pr-review-rubric/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/atuljha23/holocron/pr-review-rubric"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/atuljha23/holocron/pr-review-rubric.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 | $0.00036 | $0.00705 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00352 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00141 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00071 |
Grade A, and why
pr-review-rubric 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 12d 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 — 82 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR review rubric
What a staff-plus engineer looks at when reviewing.
1. Understand before commenting
- Read the PR description. If there isn't one, that's the first problem.
- Skim commits. A clean story of atomic commits tells you what the author was thinking.
- Read the tests first — they describe the contract.
- Now read the code.
If you can't state what this PR does in one sentence in your own words, you can't review it yet.
2. Correctness
- Does the happy path do what the description claims?
- What are the boundary inputs? (empty, huge, zero, negative, unicode, null, undefined, missing)
- What about concurrency? Two callers at once. Retries. Cancellation.
- Error paths — is every
throwhandled, and is the handler the right place? - Off-by-one, inclusive/exclusive range, integer overflow on counters.
3. Contract
- Public API change? Add-only? Breaking?
- Response shape change — who depends on the old shape?
- Database schema change — is the migration safe under traffic?
- Removed a function — who called it?
git grepbefore approving the delete.
4. Clarity
- Names convey intent.
getUserreturns a user.getUserOrDefaultreturns a user or a default.resolveexplains nothing. - Control flow reads top-to-bottom with minimal branching surprise.
- The obvious case isn't buried under the edge case.
- Comments explain why, not what. If there's a non-obvious constraint, it's documented.
5. Tests
- Do they assert behavior the user cares about, or implementation detail?
- Would they catch the next regression of this code?
- Are the failing messages useful, or "expected true got false"?
- Are there tests for every new branch?
- Do the tests actually run? (Yes, this gets missed.)
6. Blast radius
- What else does this code touch or get touched by?
- Are those callers tested, or are we relying on this PR's tests alone?
- Is there a way to stage the rollout?
7. Security
- Only flag real risks. "You could add validation here" is noise unless there's an exploitable surface.
- If this touches authn/authz, data egress, or user-controlled strings → apply the security checklist.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 82 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A cf63a5a84b60
pr-review-rubric is a skill published in the GitHub repository atuljha23/holocron (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 705 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
deslop
Remove AI-generated code slop, unnecessary comments, and over-engineering from the current branch diff. Cleans up boilerplate, simplifies abstractions, strips defensive code, and in skill-file mode lints SKILL.md files for quality. Use when cleaning up code, simplifying, removing boilerplate, before committing, or…
improve-architecture
Audit an area of the codebase and propose the smallest structural moves that improve it - untangle boundaries, kill duplication, fix seams, break cycles. Produces a prioritized plan and decision records, not a rewrite. Use when a codebase feels tangled, hard to change, or is becoming a ball of mud, or when asked to…
llm-gate
LLM-powered quality verification using prompt hooks. Validates commit messages, code patterns, and conventions using AI before allowing operations. Use to set up intelligent guardrails.
smart-commit
Run quality gates, review staged changes for issues, and create a well-crafted conventional commit. Use when saying "commit", "git commit", "save my changes", or ready to commit after making changes.
batch-rewrite-pattern
Cascade the same edit pattern across N files safely. Use when applying the same refactor to multiple files (e.g. swap import paths across 11 scripts, rename a symbol, migrate a call signature). Detects the common-shape-across-files situation and turns an N-file cascade into a planned audit → apply → verify workflow…
code-review
Reviews code for bugs, style, and best practices. Use when reviewing PRs or checking code quality.