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 baphuongna/pi-crew --skill multi-perspective-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/baphuongna/pi-crewWrote 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/baphuongna/pi-crew/multi-perspective-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/baphuongna/pi-crew/multi-perspective-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/baphuongna/pi-crew/multi-perspective-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/baphuongna/pi-crew/multi-perspective-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/baphuongna/pi-crew/multi-perspective-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 73 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 127 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
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 | $0.00036 | $0.01656 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00662 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00331 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00166 |
Grade A, and why
multi-perspective-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 196 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
multi-perspective-review
Core principle: review early, review often, and separate concerns. Reviewer output is evidence to evaluate, not an instruction to obey blindly.
Distilled from detailed reads of requesting-code-review, receiving-code-review, subagent review checkpoints, differential review, and specialized review-agent patterns.
Pre-review: Simpler Alternative Pass (Mandatory)
Before running any review passes, ask:
- Is there a simpler, smaller, or more elegant way to achieve the same goal?
- Doing nothing (is the problem real and load-bearing?)
- Using something that already exists in the codebase
- A smaller change that solves 90% of the goal with 10% of the risk
- Solving it at a different layer (config vs code, framework vs app)
- If a better alternative exists, surface it BEFORE the line-by-line review.
- Skip only if the user explicitly says "don't question scope."
This is the most valuable finding you can produce — surfacing unnecessary complexity before reviewing its details.
Review Passes
Run relevant passes separately:
- Spec compliance: Does the work match the request and nothing extra?
- Correctness: Are edge cases, state transitions, and failure paths right?
- Regression risk: Could config precedence, runtime defaults, or public APIs break?
- Security: Trust boundaries, path containment, prompt injection, secrets, permissions.
- Tests: Do tests assert the changed behavior and isolation concerns?
- Maintainability: Narrow diff, typed inputs, clear ownership, reversible changes.
- Operator experience: Error/status text, recovery hints, artifacts, logs.
- Compatibility: Windows paths, Node/Pi versions, CLI flags, legacy paths.
Finding Format
[severity] path:line or symbol
Issue: ...
Impact: ...
Fix: ...
Verification: ...
Severity:
- critical: data loss, secret leak, arbitrary command/path escape, unusable default install;
- high: broken core workflow, ownership bypass, persistent incorrect state;
- medium: important regression, flaky test, confusing recoverable behavior;
- low: polish, maintainability, docs.
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 Changed · +17 lines · +20 tokens per session fdd278d0ca03
- 1mo ago First seen · 179 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A bffcea67754c
multi-perspective-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository baphuongna/pi-crew (59 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 1,656 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…