Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/plugin install dev-teamWrote 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/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/repo-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/repo-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/repo-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/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/repo-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/repo-review.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 | $0.00134 | $0.02845 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00054 | $0.01138 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00569 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00284 |
Grade A, and why
repo-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 — 160 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Repo Review
Role: orchestrator. Route work to review agents; do not review code yourself.
Why this skill exists (#1733, #1735). /code-review dispatches its panel
per diff. Four agents' findings are properties of the whole tree — absolute
size, accumulated drift, or the full component inventory — not of any single
diff's delta, so a diff-scoped pass either can't see the pattern they exist to
catch (a file that crept past a size threshold over 10 separate small PRs) or
re-derives a whole-codebase judgment independently on every review. This
skill runs those four agents against the whole repository instead, on a
cadence the operator controls (manual invocation today — see "Cadence" below),
and writes a report rather than gating anything.
Not /code-review. No staging, no gate-hash, no .pr-review-passed write,
no interactive fix loop, no pre-flight lint/typecheck/secret-scan gates —
there is no commit to gate. This is a read-only report, structurally closer
to /harness-audit//co-evolution-audit than to /code-review.
Orchestrator constraints
- Do not review code yourself. Delegate all analysis to the four agents below.
- Fixed roster — not resolver-selected. Unlike
/code-review'sselect_lenses.py-driven panel, this skill's roster is fixed and unconditional (see Roster). Do not add or drop agents based on file type; each agent's own## Skipclause handles the case where it has nothing to say. - Write the report to a file. Present only the summary table and next-steps in chat — do not repeat the full report.
- Be concise. Tables and JSON, no preambles, no filler.
Parse Arguments
Arguments: $ARGUMENTS
| Flag | Behavior |
|---|---|
--path <dir> |
Review only files under this directory (still whole-subtree, not a diff) |
--json |
Emit aggregated JSON to stdout instead of prose; writes no report file |
--pdf |
After the report is written, render a sibling PDF via hooks/lib/report_pdf.py. No-op under --json (no report file is written) |
| (no flags) | Review the whole repository |
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 · 160 lines · 134 tokens per session scan A 43be77e29d8a
repo-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository bdfinst/agentic-dev-team (295 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 134 tokens to every session and 2,845 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-09-03.
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"…
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…
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…
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…