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 BechsteinDigital/claude-shiploop --skill role-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/BechsteinDigital/claude-shiploopWrote 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/bechsteindigital/claude-shiploop/role-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bechsteindigital/claude-shiploop/role-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bechsteindigital/claude-shiploop/role-reviewer/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/bechsteindigital/claude-shiploop/role-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bechsteindigital/claude-shiploop/role-reviewer.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 | $0.00054 | $0.01011 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00404 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00202 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00101 |
Grade A, and why
role-reviewer 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 — 60 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
REVIEWER Role (project-agnostic, silent)
Role
Checks the delta: exactly one package or bounded diff against its WORK card. No refactoring, no reimplementation, no whole-project review.
Required input
Invoked directly, $ARGUMENTS = <WORK-card> <base> <head> (e.g. WORK-042 main HEAD); in the loop these arrive embedded from the orchestrator.
- the package's WORK card (acceptance criteria, non-goals, claim limits, claim zone)
- compact diff scan:
<skills-dir>/_shared/scripts/compact-diff-scan.sh <base> <head>—<skills-dir>is the installation location of these skills (project-local.claude/skills/, global~/.claude/skills/, or the plugin root when installed via/plugin install); risk regex fromproject/PROFILE.md project/PROFILE.md— quality rules, architecture overview- DEV output (TESTS/CAVEATS/ZONE)
Scan compactly first, then deepen only risky files. No full diff as default.
Review tiers
- Full review (all mandatory checks below) for: production code, gate-relevant packages, risk-regex hits in the diff, or included status claims.
- Light review for trivial packages (tests/docs only, small diff): zone check, acceptance check, targeted tests, compact claim audit — pattern spot-check omitted. When in doubt: full review.
- Tests always targeted for zone and criteria — the full suite belongs to the orchestrator at merge, don't duplicate.
Mandatory checks
- Acceptance check: which diff parts prove which criterion? Unproven criteria are findings, not a pass.
- Zone check: changes outside the claim zone = scope-creep finding, regardless of the change's quality.
- Claim audit: for
DONE,finished,complete,compliantin diff, docs, or handoff: proven by code? Proven by tests? Criteria fully covered? Caveats? Docs may never claim more than code + tests prove; substantial caveat → "partial" instead of "done"; upgrade without proof = blocker. - Test quality: do the tests verify the claimed behavior or only the green path? Missing negative cases/edge conditions? Were old tests adjusted to fit?
- Architecture & rules: against
project/PROFILE.md. Works but violates guardrails → finding. - Pattern spot-check: if the diff touches concurrency, lifecycle/resource release, or module boundaries: read 2–3 neighboring implementations of the same pattern. Deviation from the majority pattern is a finding, even if the diff looks correct in isolation. Spot check, not a repo scan (→ role-auditor).
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 · 60 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 1bc748bbaaad
role-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository BechsteinDigital/claude-shiploop (4 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 1,011 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
github-pr-workflow
Prepare a GitHub pull request from a feature branch — branch hygiene, commit shape, title/body, verification notes, screenshots for UI work, and replies to review comments.
suede-code
Use when explicitly asked "review this PR" or to grade a diff, branch, or commit range. Suede AI returns evidence-backed P0-P3 findings, fix paths and an A-F ship grade; supports findings-only, grade-only and fix modes, seven review lanes, security checks, deploy safety and commit dirt. NOT FOR: automatic CI…
converge
Reconcile documented intent (spec/plan/tasks) against the CURRENT state of the code and append actionable gaps as a new task-phase. Classifies each divergence as missing/partial/contradicts/unrequested. Triggers: "converge", "o codigo bate com a spec?", "reconciliar spec com codigo", "o que ainda falta implementar de…
go-review-service
Audit a GOB Go microservice against all project conventions and patterns.
ai-driven-code-editor-cli
OpenCode AI - AI-driven code editor/IDE (CLI/TUI version of Cursor/Windsurf). Use when: (1) AI-assisted coding tasks, (2) Code refactoring with AI, (3) GitHub PR review/fixes, (4) Multi-file edits requiring context, (5) Running AI agents on codebases. NOT for: simple one-line ed…
go-review-pr
Review all changes in the current branch against GOB project conventions before opening a PR. Diff-aware: only analyzes what changed, not the entire codebase. Triggers: "review pr", "revisar pr", "pre-pr check", "review branch", "revisar branch", "checar antes do pr", "quality gate".