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 AuraVixStudio/caelo --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/AuraVixStudio/caeloWrote 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/auravixstudio/caelo/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/auravixstudio/caelo/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/auravixstudio/caelo/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/auravixstudio/caelo/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/auravixstudio/caelo/review.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 | $0.00020 | $0.00354 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00142 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00071 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00035 |
Grade A, and why
Review changes (multi-agent) 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.
What it actually says
Review changes (multi-agent)
Use this to get a thorough, read-only review of the current local changes (or a branch)
by fanning out to reviewer subagents. Reviewers do not modify anything.
Steps
- Scope the diff. Identify what changed: run
git status/git diff --stat(orgit diff <base>...HEAD) withrun_command, orglob/list_dirif there is no git. Build the list of changed files and group them by area. - Delegate reviewers.
delegateareviewerper area (parallel for independent areas). Tell each reviewer the exact files to read and the relevant changed lines, and ask for correctness bugs, security issues, and quality/maintainability concerns — each with afile:linereference and a short rationale. - Consolidate. Merge the returned findings, drop duplicates, and sort by severity.
- Report. Present one prioritized list to the user. Do not fix anything here — this
skill only reviews. (If the user wants fixes, switch to the
implementloop.)
Notes
- Reviewers are READONLY (no
run_command); gather any command output (e.g. the diff) yourself and pass the relevant context into each subagent's task. - Keep each reviewer's scope tight so its summary stays actionable.
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 · 30 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 1d1c2553fe2b
Review changes (multi-agent) is a skill published in the GitHub repository AuraVixStudio/caelo (25 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 354 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
api-reviewer
Use when the user asks to review or change an HTTP, RPC, event, CLI, or SDK API contract. Inspect routes, schemas, authorization, errors, compatibility, and consumers before editing, then verify request and response behavior with focused tests.
code-reviewer
A code-review guide for examining a change and its surrounding behavior for bugs, regressions, security risks, compatibility problems, and missing tests. A code review checks proposed changes before they are accepted.
pull-request-author
Use when the user asks to prepare, update, audit, or submit a pull request. Inspect repository contribution rules, branch state, diff, tests, and the target base first; create a focused reviewable change description and do not commit, push, or open a hosted pull request without explicit authorization.
refactor-engineer
Use when the user requests a behavior-preserving code refactor, cleanup, extraction, consolidation, or architectural simplification. Map all references and contracts before editing, keep the change scoped, and prove behavior with focused tests and type checks.
receiving-code-review
Handle review feedback on code with care: understand each point, check it against the real code before changing anything, fix what is right, and push back with reasons on what is wrong. Use when review comments arrive.
address-pr-comments
Work through the review comments on a pull request: check each point against the code, make the changes that are right, answer the ones that are not, and hold every reply for approval before it is posted.