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 bdfinst/agentic-dev-team --skill review-agentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-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/review-agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/review-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/review-agent/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/review-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/review-agent.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, 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 Excessive Agency · line 61 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00086 | $0.01737 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.00695 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00347 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00174 |
Grade A, and why
review-agent 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 — 153 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Agent
Role: worker. This skill performs the actual review using the agent definition as its specification.
You have been invoked with the /review-agent skill. Run a single named review agent.
This command is executed under orchestrator direction. Pass the named
agent's model:/effort: frontmatter as declared — the harness resolves
both fields natively before dispatch, per Model/Effort Resolution in
.claude/agents/orchestrator.md (ADR 0026).
Worker constraints
- Follow the agent definition exactly. The agent file is your specification — detect what it says to detect, skip what it says to skip.
- Respect context needs. When reviewing uncommitted changes or
--since, honor the agent'sContext needsfield (diff-only, full-file, or project-structure). - Do not add findings beyond the agent's scope. If the agent says "Ignore: naming, tests" — do not flag naming or test issues.
- The structured JSON result (step 3) is the canonical output.
In
--jsonmode it is the only thing written to stdout — no formatted summary, no report, no prose (see step 3c). Otherwise it is also rendered as a formatted summary (step 4) and written to the durable report (step 4b). - Be concise. Issue messages should be one sentence. Suggested fixes should be actionable, not explanatory. No preambles or filler.
Parse Arguments
Arguments: $ARGUMENTS
Required: agent name ($0, e.g., test-review, js-fp-review, security-review)
Optional:
--since <ref>: Review files changed since a git ref--path <dir>: Target directory (default: current working directory)--internal: This is an orchestrator-internal dispatch (e.g./build's Phase 3 inline checkpoints) — skip the.dev-team-reports/report write in step 4b./buildis the only sanctioned caller of this flag today.--json: Machine-readable mode. Emit only the step-3 JSON result to stdout and nothing else — skip the formatted summary (step 4), skip the.dev-team-reports/report write (step 4b), and print no confirmation line, preamble, or trailing prose. Used by subprocess callers such as/agent-eval --calibratethat parse stdout and need a deterministic, model-independent result. See step 3c.
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 · 153 lines · 86 tokens per session scan A fe1fb99e56d4
review-agent is a skill published in the GitHub repository bdfinst/agentic-dev-team (295 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 86 tokens to every session and 1,737 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 2026-09-03.
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…