Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to ayutaz/piper-plus. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ayutaz/piper-plus/dev/.claude/skills/check-pr-ready/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ayutaz/piper-plusWrote 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/ayutaz/piper-plus/check-pr-ready)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ayutaz/piper-plus/check-pr-ready"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ayutaz/piper-plus/check-pr-ready/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/ayutaz/piper-plus/check-pr-ready"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ayutaz/piper-plus/check-pr-ready.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 | $0.00049 | $0.01534 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00614 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00307 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00153 |
Grade A, and why
check-pr-ready 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 — 106 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR 作成前 最終チェック
PR を出す前にすべての品質チェックを実行し、問題があればレポートします。 マージ可能な状態か判定する ことが目的です。
現在の状態
- ブランチ: !
git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD - リモート差分 (dev との): !
git log --oneline dev..HEAD 2>/dev/null | head -10 - 未コミット: !
git status --porcelain 2>/dev/null | head -20 - 変更ファイル数: !
git diff --name-only dev..HEAD 2>/dev/null | wc -l | tr -d ' '
実行手順 (順番通り、失敗したら停止して報告)
Phase 1: ブランチと未コミット確認
- ブランチが
dev以外であることを確認 - 未コミット変更があれば、ユーザーに確認して
/commitを促す - dev との差分が 1 コミット以上あることを確認 (空の PR を防ぐ)
Phase 2: コードチェック
$ARGUMENTS に skip-tests が 含まれていない 場合のみ、以下を実行:
/precheckskill を実行 (lint + format + test)- 実装: precheck と同じロジックを直接実行 (lint + format + scope-detected tests)
- 失敗があれば即停止し、修正案を提示
Phase 3: ドキュメント整合性チェック
-
CLAUDE.md 更新確認:
git diff dev..HEAD --name-onlyで大きな機能追加 (50 行以上の新規ファイル) を検出- 検出された場合、
CLAUDE.mdが同じ PR で更新されているか確認 - 未更新なら警告 (機能の追加箇所と CLAUDE.md のセクション提案)
-
README 更新確認:
- 同様に、README.md / src/python_run/README.md / src/wasm/openjtalk-web/README.npm.md を確認
- 機能名や API が変わっている場合は更新を促す
-
CHANGELOG 更新確認:
CHANGELOG.mdの Unreleased セクションが更新されているか確認- 大きな機能追加なら未更新を警告
-
docstring カバレッジ確認 (Python の場合):
git diff dev..HEAD --name-only -- 'src/python_run/piper_plus/*.py' 'src/python/g2p/*.py'- 新規 public 関数/クラスに docstring があるかチェック (簡易)
Phase 4: PR 本文ドラフト
- 上記すべてが OK なら、PR 本文のドラフトを
.github/pull_request_template.mdの見出しどおりに生成:- タイトル: dev..HEAD の最初のコミット件名 (70 文字以内、 Conventional Commits の
type(scope): ...形式。pr-metadata.ymlのpr-title-checkが検査する) ## Summary: 各コミットの要約から 3-5 個の bullet## Affected Components/## Type: 該当を- [x]で最低 1 個ずつ## Risk Level: patch / minor / major のうち ちょうど 1 個を- [x]## Contract Impact/## Checklist/## Related Issues: template の項目を埋める## Test Plan(大文字 P): 実行したチェックの結果 checklist。 空やコメントだけにしないpr-metadata.ymlのpr-body-validatestep は Test Plan の中身、 Risk Level の 1 個、 Affected Components と Type の最低 1 個を検査し、 欠けると PR が red になる (詳細は/create-prの「PR 本文フォーマット」)
- タイトル: dev..HEAD の最初のコミット件名 (70 文字以内、 Conventional Commits の
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 Changed · +3 lines 7300bffab600
- 2mo ago First seen · 103 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A c3a7479169a9
check-pr-ready is a skill published in the GitHub repository ayutaz/piper-plus (239 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 1,534 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
adversarial-reviewer
Stress-test a code change for concrete correctness defects, unsafe assumptions, and failure modes. Use when the user explicitly asks for an adversarial review, a deep bug hunt, or to tear a change apart, or to check your own change before submitting it. Do not use for ordinary review, style feedback, or general…
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
plugin-review
Review plugin quality with tiered checks and dependency scoping. Use for PR and pre-release audits.
audit-ci
Run and analyze Elements cold CI performance profiles and propose evidence-backed build, test, lint, and dependency-graph improvements. Use whenever asked to profile or benchmark pnpm run ci, rerun ci:profile, create a CI performance audit, compare CI timings, find bottlenecks or the completion path, investigate a CI…