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 scrutinizegit 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/scrutinize)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/baphuongna/pi-crew/scrutinize"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/baphuongna/pi-crew/scrutinize/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/scrutinize"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/baphuongna/pi-crew/scrutinize.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 | $0.00016 | $0.00794 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00397 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00159 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00079 |
Grade A, and why
scrutinize 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 — 87 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Scrutinize
Stand outside the change and ask whether it should exist at all, then verify it actually does what it claims end-to-end.
Operating Stance
- Outsider. Forget who wrote it and why they think it's right. Read the artifact cold.
- End-to-end, not diff-local. The diff is the entry point, not the scope.
- Actionable, concise, with rationale. Every finding states what to change, why, and what evidence led you there.
Workflow
1. Intent — Is this necessary?
- State the goal in one sentence, in your own words. If you cannot, the artifact is underspecified — say so and stop.
- Ask: Is there a simpler way?
- Delete/does-nothing (is the problem real and load-bearing?)
- Use existing code (does this already exist?)
- Smaller change (solves 90% of goal with 10% of risk?)
- Different layer (config vs code, framework vs app, build vs runtime?)
- If a better alternative exists, name it BEFORE the line-by-line review.
2. Trace — Walk the actual code path
- For each behavior the change claims, trace end-to-end through real code — not just the lines in the diff.
- Include unchanged code on either side of the diff. Bugs hide at the seams.
- Entry point → call sites → branches taken → state mutated → exit/return/side effect.
3. Verify — Does it do what it claims?
- Does the traced code actually produce the behavior?
- What inputs/states would break it? (Edge cases, concurrent callers, error paths, partial failures, retries, empty/null/unicode/huge inputs)
- What does it silently change? (Performance, error semantics, observability, contracts)
- How is it tested? (Do tests exercise the traced path, or pass while skipping it?)
4. Report
Format per finding:
[severity] file:line
Issue: ...
Impact: ...
Fix: ...
Severity:
- critical: data loss, secret leak, arbitrary command/path escape
- high: broken core workflow, ownership bypass
- medium: regression, flaky behavior
- low: polish, maintainability
Close with verdict: ship / fix-then-ship / rework / reject — with single biggest reason.
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 · 87 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 887de6c06a7e
scrutinize is a skill published in the GitHub repository baphuongna/pi-crew (52 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 794 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.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.