Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bjcoombs/ai-native-toolkitnpx agentmods add skills/bjcoombs/ai-native-toolkit/assess-prWrote 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/bjcoombs/ai-native-toolkit/assess-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bjcoombs/ai-native-toolkit/assess-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bjcoombs/ai-native-toolkit/assess-pr/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/bjcoombs/ai-native-toolkit/assess-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bjcoombs/ai-native-toolkit/assess-pr.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 | $0.00067 | $0.09430 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.03772 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.01886 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00943 |
Grade A, and why
assess-pr 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 — 405 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Assess PR and Issues
The end-of-run half of /assess. The report (.assess/assess-report.md), the complexity heatmap, and the doc graph are written. This step runs the optional end-of-run offers - in order - then closes the loop:
- Open a PR with the report (Step 5).
- Track the Top 3 Actions in the user's issue tracker (Step 6).
- Freeze the assessment into a CI gate (Step 6.5).
- Tool feedback (Step 7) - surface anomalies and offer to file feedback.
- Uninstall
/assess(Step 8) - the escape hatch: remove everything this run wrote.
Each offer is independent (uninstall excepted - it's mutually exclusive with the write-back offers): a user can accept any subset. The step references back into the written assess-report.md artifact (notably the Top 3 Actions table's Issue column), not into the scoring prose, so it stays decoupled from how the report was produced.
Phase 2: ask once, batched (and the non-interactive contract)
These are the write-back phase of the consent lifecycle (Phase 2; Phase 1 was the tool installs, Phase 3 the mutation pass - see the assess SKILL.md). Do not serialise them into back-to-back modals. Present them as one batched, multi-select AskUserQuestion: "Now that the report is written, which of these should I do?" with the options (open a PR, track the Top 3 Actions, freeze a CI gate, file feedback, and - the mutually-exclusive escape hatch - uninstall /assess from this repo), pre-filtered by feasibility:
- Drop the PR option when the push-capability / remote check below (Step 5) shows no direct or fork PR is possible; on a read-only target, offer the fork variant instead. When the target states it takes no contributions (Step 5's no-contributions scan), offer the no-contributions variant instead on a read-only target (READ / TRIAGE) or in a clone of the user's own fork: a PR inside the user's fork, never one against upstream. A user who can push to the non-fork repo itself keeps the direct PR option, with the statement quoted.
- Drop the CI gate option when the workflow could never run (no GitHub remote).
- Keep issue tracking and feedback always (feedback needs no repo write).
- Uninstall (Step 8) always appears: it removes what this run wrote. It doesn't compose with the write-back offers (no point opening a PR and deleting the report), so treat selecting it as "skip the others and clean up".
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 Changed · -4 lines 11c8c76a1a70
- 1mo ago Changed · +65 lines 69304f48a66b
- 1mo ago First seen · 344 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A 1b6c42f0cb86
assess-pr is a skill published in the GitHub repository bjcoombs/ai-native-toolkit (32 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 67 tokens to every session and 9,430 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
parallel-feature-development
Coordinate parallel feature development with file ownership strategies, conflict avoidance rules, and integration patterns for multi-agent implementation. Use this skill when decomposing a large feature into independent work streams, when two or more agents need to implement different layers of the same system…
code-review-excellence
Master effective code review practices to provide constructive feedback, catch bugs early, and foster knowledge sharing while maintaining team morale. Use when reviewing pull requests, establishing review standards, or mentoring developers.
multi-reviewer-patterns
Coordinate parallel code reviews across multiple quality dimensions with finding deduplication, severity calibration, and consolidated reporting. Use this skill when organizing multi-reviewer code reviews, calibrating finding severity, or consolidating review results.
bazel-build-optimization
Optimize Bazel builds for large-scale monorepos. Use when configuring Bazel, implementing remote execution, or optimizing build performance for enterprise codebases.
tech-debt
Track, categorize and prioritize technical debt across the codebase — scans for debt indicators, maintains a register.
track-management
Use this skill when creating, managing, or working with Conductor tracks - the logical work units for features, bugs, and refactors. Applies to spec.md, plan.md, and track lifecycle operations.