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 | $0.00016 | $0.01511 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00756 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00302 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00151 |
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 10d 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 — 179 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.
- 10d 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 (52 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 1,511 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…