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 biggora/dev-team --skill review-contractgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/biggora/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/biggora/dev-team/review-contract)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/biggora/dev-team/review-contract"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/biggora/dev-team/review-contract/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/biggora/dev-team/review-contract"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/biggora/dev-team/review-contract.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 | $0.00178 | $0.02749 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00071 | $0.01100 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00036 | $0.00550 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00275 |
Grade A, and why
review-contract 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.
The source is not reproduced here
No licence file
A repository with no LICENSE is all rights reserved by default, so the body is not copied here. The metadata, the measurements and the link are.
What ships with it
3 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 243 lines · 178 tokens per session scan A cef057eaae61
review-contract is a skill published in the GitHub repository biggora/dev-team (3 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), with no licence file. It adds 178 tokens to every session and 2,749 once invoked, about $0.0007 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 2026-09-17.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-team
A multi-reviewer code review process that checks a change from several specialist viewpoints and combines the results into one report. It can cover bugs, security, tests, dependencies, frontend behavior, and continuous-integration workflows.
eval-code-quality
Specialized code quality evaluator for the Evaluate-Loop. Use this for evaluating code implementation tracks where the deliverable is functional code — features, API routes, state management, utilities. Checks build integrity, type safety, code patterns, error handling, dead code, imports, test coverage, and naming…
receiving-code-review
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation.
requesting-code-review
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements.
swarm-pi-review
Review a Git working tree or branch with read-only Pi workers. Use standard for bugs, security, regressions, and missing tests; use lean for diff-bound simplification, deletion, reuse, YAGNI, or native replacements. Route one question to ask and broader risk analysis to orchestrate.
skeptical-triage
Reusable 3-round self-challenge + arbiter pattern for filtering false positives from findings/verdicts. Use when the cost of a false-positive gate block exceeds the cost of 4 extra LLM turns.