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/claude-memory-kit --skill session-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/awrshift/claude-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/claude-memory-kit/session-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/awrshift/claude-memory-kit/session-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/awrshift/claude-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/claude-memory-kit/session-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/awrshift/claude-memory-kit/session-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 | $0.00149 | $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.
This is a copy
100% identical to session-review — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
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/claude-memory-kit (31 stars, last pushed 1mo 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. It is 100% identical to session-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
generic-fullstack-code-reviewer
Review full-stack code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md compliance. Enforces TypeScript strict mode, input validation, GPU-accelerated animations, and design system consistency. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing pull requests.
generic-static-code-reviewer
Review static site code for bugs, security issues, performance problems, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md compliance. Enforces pure HTML/CSS/JS standards, minimal page weight, mobile-first design. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing changes.
review
Code review with semantic diffs, expert routing, and auto-TaskCreate. Triggers on: code review, review changes, check code, review PR, security audit.
ai-architect-review
Review the architecture of a system that calls a language model. Use when adding an agent loop, a retrieval path, a tool surface, or an MCP server to a codebase; when a system that worked in a demo is being prepared for production; or when asked to audit, review, or plan AI/agent architecture. Checks the four…
github-code-review
Comprehensive GitHub pull-request code review with multi-agent coordination. Use when reviewing a PR or diff, auditing changes for correctness/security/style before merge, or generating actionable inline review comments.
structural-search
Search code by AST structure using ast-grep. Find semantic patterns like function calls, imports, class definitions instead of text patterns. Triggers on: find all calls to X, search for pattern, refactor usages, find where function is used, structural search, ast-grep, sg.