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 awrshift/agent-memory-kit --skill session-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/awrshift/agent-memory-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/awrshift/agent-memory-kit/session-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/awrshift/agent-memory-kit/session-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/awrshift/agent-memory-kit/session-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/awrshift/agent-memory-kit/session-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/awrshift/agent-memory-kit/session-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 | $0.00149 | $0.01242 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00060 | $0.00497 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00248 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00124 |
Grade A, and why
session-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 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- session-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 91 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Session Review — the adversarial closing loop
Stress-test a session's work before it sets, using reviewers who don't share your blind spots. You wrote the work, so you are the worst person to spot what you assumed. The loop ends in action: cheap-safe fixes applied immediately, the rest recorded as a measurable plan, and anything you disagree with explicitly challenged — not silently accepted, not silently dropped.
Invocation is usually EXPLICIT (/session-review) — "review" is something the agent does
natively, so don't expect auto-triggering; invoke it by name at session close.
The loop
1. Assemble the brief (the load-bearing step)
Write ONE self-contained markdown brief (e.g. to /tmp/<repo>-session-review.md). It is the
only context the reviewers get. It must contain:
- An assigned role that fits the work ("Principal Engineer" for a feature slice, "Security reviewer" for auth work) — the role is the lens.
- Project context a stranger can follow, the session goal, and what was built, with concrete file:line references.
- The specific decision points you most want challenged — and for anything that turns on CURRENT best practice, an explicit ask to web-check with sources.
- What to return — a structured verdict with severity, file refs, a short MEASURABLE plan.
Never let the brief be the reviewer's only window: tell the code-reader explicitly "do not trust this summary — read the actual files." Your summary is where your blind spots live.
2. Run the reviewers IN PARALLEL (same message)
- Reviewer A — the isolated code-reader. Spawn
idea-validatorpointed at the brief AND the actual files, with the currency instruction: "web-check whether every library / runtime / pattern I chose is still the right choice this year, cite sources." Without that line it only verifies claims you explicitly made — dated tech slips through. - Reviewer B — an external-family model (if available), reviewing from the brief only. Different training distribution, different blind spots; lean on it for concept and tech-currency, not file-level facts.
- One reviewer alone (A) is still a valid light review — note the absence and proceed.
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 · 91 lines · 149 tokens per session scan A 29853e51633e
session-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository awrshift/agent-memory-kit (34 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 149 tokens to every session and 1,242 once invoked, about $0.0006 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
github-commander
Structured workflows for GitHub issues, PRs, milestones, and code audits with validation gates and HITL checkpoints. Use when assigned a GitHub issue, reviewing a PR, sprinting through a milestone, updating dependencies, or running code audits. Also use when asked to "triage an issue", "review a PR", or "update deps".…
aictx
Use this skill when working in a repository that uses AICTX for repo-local operational continuity. Prefer AICTX MCP tools when available, fall back to CLI commands, resume before substantial work, and finalize factual continuity after work.
review
Generate an architecture-aware code review checking patterns, conventions, and decision alignment.
adversarial-workflow-audit
Multi-pass adversarial quality audit for flat markdown workflow files. Combines structured evaluation (Agent A) with adversarial stress-testing (Agent B) to assess sequential clarity, prerequisite validation, HITL (Human-in-the-loop) safety gates, loop prevention, and formatting. Use when auditing workflow scripts…
generator-evaluator-loop
Orchestrate a Coder→Quality iteration loop against a story's Verification contract. Use when a story has a complete Verification section and is ready for execution with automated review.
review-before-commit
Run a behavioral self-check before persisting story results. Verifies diff simplicity, scope adherence, and verifiable completion against enso §10 behavioral principles. Use when a story's implementation is complete and ready to close.