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 Bevel-Software/Hexis --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Bevel-Software/HexisWrote 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/bevel-software/hexis/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bevel-software/hexis/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bevel-software/hexis/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/bevel-software/hexis/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bevel-software/hexis/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 | $0.00093 | $0.01364 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00037 | $0.00546 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00273 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00136 |
Grade A, and why
review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 6d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 81 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Pre-landing review
Step 0: Find the base branch
Use the pull request's base if there is one (gh pr view --json baseRefName -q .baseRefName), otherwise the repository's default branch (git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD), otherwise main. Call it <base> below.
Step 1: Check the branch
git status --porcelainfor uncommitted work (staged, unstaged and new files). Keep the list: it is part of the diff in Step 3.git branch --show-current. On the base branch with nothing uncommitted, say "Nothing to review — you're on the base branch or have no changes against it." and stop. On the base branch with uncommitted changes, review those alone.git fetch origin <base> --quiet, thengit diff "$(git merge-base origin/<base> HEAD)" --stat. No diff and nothing uncommitted: say the same and stop. If the fetch failed, carry on against the base you have and say the review is against a stale base.
Step 1.5: Scope drift
Read the pull request description, the linked issue, or the plan for this branch if there is one (an office-hours design doc or a plan-eng-review in the knowledge base counts). Compare it with what the diff actually does: flag work the plan promised that is missing, and changes that go beyond it. Both are informational findings, not blockers.
Step 2: Read the checklist
Read checklist.md beside this file. If it cannot be read, stop and say so — do not review without it.
Step 3: Read the diff
Read the full diff: git diff "$(git merge-base origin/<base> HEAD)" for what the branch committed, plus git diff and git diff --cached for uncommitted work, and each new file Step 1 listed in full. Do not comment on anything before you have read all of it, and never flag something the diff already addresses.
Step 4: Critical pass
Apply the checklist's two passes in order — CRITICAL, then INFORMATIONAL — and respect its suppressions.
- Enum and value completeness needs code outside the diff. When the diff adds an enum value, status, tier or type constant, search for every place that uses its sibling values, read those files, and check the new value is handled.
- Search before recommending. For fixes involving concurrency, caching, auth or framework behaviour, check current practice for the installed framework version and whether a built-in replaces the workaround (with web search if you have it; otherwise say you could not check).
- Shared code is advisory. Suggest an extraction only with at least one changed location in this diff and at least two real callers needing the same behaviour; prefer an existing helper. Never apply one without asking.
- TODOs: if the repository has a
TODOS.md, note items this change completes ("This PR addresses TODO: …") and new TODOs it introduces. - Docs: if the change alters a feature or workflow that a doc in the repository, or a page in the knowledge base, describes and that doc was not updated, flag it as informational.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 81 lines · 93 tokens per session scan A 9c3990fc9df2
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Bevel-Software/Hexis (115 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 93 tokens to every session and 1,364 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-10-10.
Other skills, from other repositories
asa-evidence-grounding-auditor
Use when auditing whether a skill decomposition is evidence-grounded, over-inference-safe, and publishable.
gh-address-comments
Help address review/issue comments on the open GitHub PR for the current branch using gh CLI; verify gh auth first and prompt the user to authenticate if not logged in.
otto-pr-review-loop
Run Polly and OCR on a PR until all findings settle.
meta-codereview-current-diff
Read the current uncommitted diff, run three independent reviewers (safety + tests-coverage + style) in parallel, then arbitrate a single BLOCK / BLOCKWITHOVERRIDE / PASSWITHNOTES verdict. Use before commit when you want a multi-perspective second-opinion instead of a single-reviewer agent loop.
openkb-deck-editorial
A tool for creating a single-file HTML slide presentation from compiled knowledge-base content. Its visual style uses a warm cream background, serif typography, and brick-red accents.
openkb-html-critic
Use to review a generated HTML deck or single-page artifact for visual quality and structural correctness. Especially good at catching CSS specificity bugs where slide-modifier classes (.divider, .center, .q, .flow etc.) accidentally override the base .slide{display:none} and cause one slide to stack on top of every…