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 agentmods add skills/ayoubben18/ab-method/review-implementationnpx skills add ayoubben18/ab-method --skill review-implementationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ayoubben18/ab-methodWhat 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 | $0.00102 | $0.01389 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00051 | $0.00694 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00278 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00139 |
Grade A, and why
review-implementation 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 3d 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 — 100 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Implementation (post-implementation)
Review a completed task's diff through three lenses, each a read-only critic subagent. The counterpart to ../critique-plan/SKILL.md: that guards the plan before coding; this guards the result after.
Silence is the default output. A clean diff produces no findings — that is the normal case. A finding survives only if a senior engineer, looking at this diff, would actually make the change. State each as a concrete cost, not a preference. Never invent refactors to look thorough.
ALWAYS check .ab-method/structure/index.yaml FIRST for paths (task location, domain model,
review.md). Review only what this task changed — the cohesive diff across its missions (git diff
for the commit range). This is not a whole-codebase audit; that's /improve-codebase-architecture.
Process
1. Gather diff + context
The changed files and their git diff, plus (read only what exists): UBIQUITOUS_LANGUAGE.md /
CONTEXT.md (canonical terms, spotting reinvented concepts), docs/architecture/* (the documented way
things are built here), docs/adr/ (don't propose what an ADR settled), and the task's
unresolved-questions.md if it has one.
Black boxes are deliberate — seed every critic with the file. A TODO(UQ-n) seam whose entry is
recorded there is a decision the user signed off on: ship a placeholder rather than guess. No lens may
flag it as slop, a shallow module, a speculative abstraction, or dead code, and none may propose
"just implement it properly" — the answer isn't theirs to pick. Two things are fair game and should be
reported: a TODO(UQ-n) marker with no matching entry (an orphan black box nobody recorded), and a
placeholder that leaked past its named seam into several call sites — the seam was supposed to contain
it, and containing it again is a safe fix.
2. Spin up THREE read-only critics — in parallel
Spawn three subagents in one batch, named exactly:
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 100 lines · 102 tokens per session scan A 650660f2271a
review-implementation is a skill published in the GitHub repository ayoubben18/ab-method (187 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 102 tokens to every session and 1,389 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
auto-perf-optimize
Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.
chat-perf
Run chat perf benchmarks and memory leak checks against the local dev build or any published VS Code version. Use when investigating chat rendering regressions, validating perf-sensitive changes to chat UI, or checking for memory leaks in the chat response pipeline.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…