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 bigduu/Bamboo-agent --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bigduu/Bamboo-agentWrote 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/bigduu/bamboo-agent/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bigduu/bamboo-agent/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bigduu/bamboo-agent/review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00062 | $0.00378 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00189 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00076 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00038 |
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 8d 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.
What it actually says
Review
Review the requested scope without changing it unless the user explicitly asks for fixes.
- Resolve the exact diff, files, revision, and repository instructions in scope.
- Read enough surrounding code, tests, and public contracts to judge behavior rather than style in isolation.
- Check correctness, data loss, security boundaries, concurrency, error handling, compatibility, and missing tests in proportion to risk.
- Validate suspected problems with concrete control flow, a focused command, or another direct source of evidence. For language, library, or runtime semantics, run a minimal reproducer or consult authoritative documentation instead of relying on memory. This is a hard gate: if neither verification path is available, omit the claim or state it only as an unverified coverage limit, never as a finding. Do not report speculation as a finding.
- Distinguish defects from documented behavior and unspecified caller expectations. Do not report a language primitive's normal semantics, a hypothetical contract, or a style preference unless the reviewed code or its callers establish that the behavior is wrong.
- Report only actionable findings, ordered by severity. Give each finding a precise file and line, impact, trigger, and evidence. Calibrate severity to demonstrated reachability and impact; do not label a local panic or edge case critical without evidence of a critical boundary.
If no actionable findings remain, say so plainly. Always summarize validation performed and residual risks or untested paths. If tools, permissions, or missing artifacts limit coverage, identify the limit instead of implying a complete review.
What ships with it
4 files 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.
- 8d ago First seen · 18 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A ca6dbb741289
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository bigduu/Bamboo-agent (16 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 378 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
GitHub Code Review
Review pull requests with a bug-first mindset, grounding findings in concrete diff context and repository behavior.
Skill: Verify CLI changes (example for Verify skill)
Example workflow for verifying a CLI change, as part of the Verify skill.
qa
QA test a live website with Axon discovery/content evidence plus browser automation when interaction is required. Use when the user wants exploratory QA, form testing, navigation/link checks, responsive checks, performance observations, bug reports, or a pre-launch quality review.
simplify
Clean up changed code while preserving intended behavior. Use when the user asks to simplify or improve code quality through reuse, simplification, efficiency, and abstraction reviews. Correctness bug hunting is outside scope.
review-prs
Review a GitHub pull request in the googleapis/mcp-toolbox repo against the team's reviewer checklist: PR title/description conventions, linked issue, logic errors and unhandled edge cases, breaking changes, test coverage, docs updates, security (input handling), and new dependencies. Use whenever a maintainer asks…
fix-failing-tests
Diagnose a failing test in the googleapis/mcp-toolbox repo and land a fix by reasoning from the actual error: read the failure, reproduce it, shrink it until the cause is forced into the open, then fix the cause. Use this whenever a test or CI job is red, a build breaks after a change, many packages fail at once, or a…