Plannotator is a local browser-based review tool for coding agents that lets people annotate plans, documents, HTML artifacts, code diffs, and pull requests, then send feedback back to the agent. It is used by developers and teams reviewing work from agents across supported coding tools and version-control systems.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to backnotprop/plannotator. 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/backnotprop/plannotator/main/.agents/skills/review-renovate/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/backnotprop/plannotatorWrote 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/backnotprop/plannotator/review-renovate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/backnotprop/plannotator/review-renovate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/backnotprop/plannotator/review-renovate/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/backnotprop/plannotator/review-renovate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/backnotprop/plannotator/review-renovate.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 | $0.00066 | $0.00582 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00233 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00116 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00058 |
Grade A, and why
review-renovate 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 71 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Renovate GitHub Actions PRs
You are reviewing a Renovate bot PR that updates GitHub Actions dependencies. Your job is to verify supply chain integrity and ensure the upgrades won't break CI/CD workflows.
Inputs
You will be given a PR number or URL. Use gh CLI to fetch PR details and diff.
Steps
1. Fetch PR metadata and diff
gh pr view <PR> --json title,body,files,commits,author,headRefName
gh pr diff <PR>
Confirm the PR author is app/renovate. If not, flag this immediately — it may not be an automated dependency update.
2. Identify all action version changes
From the diff, extract each changed action:
- Full action name (e.g.,
oven-sh/setup-bun) - Old version tag and pinned SHA
- New version tag and pinned SHA
- Update type (patch, minor, major)
3. Verify pinned SHAs against upstream tags
For every action being updated, verify both old and new SHAs match the claimed version tags:
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/git/ref/tags/{version} --jq '.object.sha'
Compare each result against the SHA in the workflow file. If any SHA does not match, stop and report a supply chain integrity failure. Do not approve the PR.
4. Review changelogs for breaking changes
From the PR body (Renovate includes release notes), check each updated action for:
- Removed inputs or outputs that the workflows currently use
- Changed default behavior for inputs the workflows rely on
- New required inputs
- Major version bumps (these almost always have breaking changes)
5. Check workflow compatibility
Read the affected workflow files and verify:
- No removed or renamed inputs are being used
- No changed defaults affect current behavior
- The action's runtime requirements are still met (e.g., Node.js version compatibility)
6. Report findings
Present a summary table:
| Action | Old | New | Type | SHA verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ... | ... | ... | patch/minor/major | yes/NO |
Then state:
- Whether all SHAs are verified
- Whether any breaking changes were found
- Whether the workflows remain compatible
- A clear safe to merge or do not merge recommendation
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 · 71 lines · 66 tokens per session scan A 2c3a0b926e1a
review-renovate is a skill published in the GitHub repository backnotprop/plannotator (9,683 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 66 tokens to every session and 582 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
pr
Draft a PR body from OMC's paper trail — the smallest visual that proves the change, evidence consumed from the verify protocol (never re-collected), reversibility from the ADR test on the diff, glossary language throughout.
archify-review
Review Archify issues, PRs, or code through value, cost, and impact to support evidence-based maintenance decisions. Use for issue triage, change reviews, and code quality assessments.
release-pr-review
Review pass on an open release PR (release/ → main) — the step between git-wrapup and release-and-publish when a project releases in gated release PR mode. Reads the PR's commit range through the code-simplifier lens plus a correctness review, verifies whatever an automated reviewer left on the PR, lands fixes as…
remove-ai-slops
Removes AI-generated code smells from branch changes or an explicit file list behind regression tests. Use when the user asks to clean up, deslop, or remove AI-slop patterns from recent changes.
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.
tech-debt-audit
Thorough, file-cited technical debt audit across 9 dimensions using AST-grep (tree-sitter), grep, LSP, and language-native tooling. Produces TECHDEBTAUDIT.md with severity, effort estimates, and prioritized fixes. Use when asked for codebase health check, tech debt audit, architecture review, code quality assessment…