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 azmym/gemini-plugin --skill gemini-chat-and-reasongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/azmym/gemini-pluginWrote 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/azmym/gemini-plugin/gemini-chat-and-reason)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/azmym/gemini-plugin/gemini-chat-and-reason"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/azmym/gemini-plugin/gemini-chat-and-reason/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/azmym/gemini-plugin/gemini-chat-and-reason"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/azmym/gemini-plugin/gemini-chat-and-reason.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 | $0.00039 | $0.00782 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00391 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00156 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00078 |
Grade A, and why
gemini-chat-and-reason 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 9d 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 — 83 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Gemini Chat and Reason
Use this skill when you want Gemini to serve as a reasoning partner: reviewing code, critiquing a design, stress-testing a decision, or providing a second opinion on anything Claude has produced or is about to produce.
When to use this skill
- Code review: You have written a non-trivial function or module and want a second set of eyes before committing.
- Design critique: You are proposing an architecture, API contract, or data model and want pushback.
- Sanity check: You are about to take an irreversible action (deploy, delete, migrate) and want confirmation the plan is sound.
- Perspective shift: Claude's reasoning has gone deep down one path; Gemini can surface blind spots.
- Multi-turn dialogue: You need to iterate on a draft or decision through several back-and-forth exchanges.
MCP tools
| Tool | Purpose |
|---|---|
gemini_generate |
Single-shot text generation, best for one-off questions or reviews |
gemini_chat |
Multi-turn conversation, best for iterative critique or dialogue |
Model selection guidance
- For routine second opinions and code reviews, use the default model (
gemini-3.7-flashfor chat); it is fast and cheap. - For complex architectural decisions or lengthy documents requiring deep reasoning, request
gemini-3.1-pro-previewexplicitly via themodelparameter. This is already the default forgemini_generate. - Avoid the pro tier on short, low-stakes queries; the cost uplift is not justified.
Usage pattern
Single-shot review with gemini_generate
{
"tool": "gemini_generate",
"arguments": {
"prompt": "Review the following Go function for correctness, error handling, and idiomatic style:\n\n```go\n<paste code here>\n```",
"model": "gemini-3.7-flash"
}
}
Multi-turn design critique with gemini_chat
Start a session, then send follow-up messages in the same session_id:
{
"tool": "gemini_chat",
"arguments": {
"message": "I am designing a REST API for a payment service. Here is the proposed endpoint structure: <details>. What are the biggest risks?",
"session_id": "payment-api-review"
}
}
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 83 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 9acc20d92a03
gemini-chat-and-reason is a skill published in the GitHub repository azmym/gemini-plugin (1 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 782 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
gemini-peer-review
This skill should be invoked BEFORE presenting implementation plans, architecture recommendations, code review findings, or answers to broad technical questions. Use proactively when about to "recommend", "suggest", "propose", "design", "plan", or answer "how should", "what's the best way", "which approach". MANDATORY…
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…
red-team-review
Unified adversarial review: v4.3 Strategic Matrix (MTA-004). 7-phase framework: Priors → Rubric → Adversarial Lenses → SWOT/TOWS → MCDA Decision Engine → Blind Spot/Kill Switch → Executive Summary. Absorbs: bias-detector.
openclaw-github-dedupe
Investigate a cluster of GitHub issues and PRs, determine canonical candidates, post duplicate/related status, preserve contributor credit, and execute cleanup actions. Supports autonomous mode for provided-link-only closeout, merge/fix follow-through, changelog, and post-merge issue/PR cleanup.
procoder
Work like a senior developer in a repository governed by procoder: run the commit gate before calling anything done, format and lint through the binary, and drive the spec, plan, todo, backlog, and sprint chain in .procoder/. Use this skill when the repository contains a .procoder/ directory or an AGENTS.md naming…
code-review
The depth half of a review - the dimensions a diff is read against (correctness, boundaries, concurrency, failure paths, secrets, data access, structure, test quality) and the rule that a finding is refuted before it is reported. The verdict stays with the reviewer agent. Use when reviewing a diff or a pull request…