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 bjcoombs/ai-native-toolkit --skill pr-review-mergegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bjcoombs/ai-native-toolkitWrote 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/pr-review-merge)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bjcoombs/ai-native-toolkit/pr-review-merge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bjcoombs/ai-native-toolkit/pr-review-merge/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/pr-review-merge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bjcoombs/ai-native-toolkit/pr-review-merge.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00131 | $0.04787 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00052 | $0.01915 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00957 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00479 |
Grade A, and why
pr-review-merge 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 — 248 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Review-to-Green + Smart Merge
Source-agnostic. Consumers pass: PR number, base branch, and bot-reviewer/CI rules
from the project's ## Marathon Configuration (defaults if absent).
Run-completion is gated elsewhere (floor)
This skill takes one PR to merge — a process signal. A green, merged PR is not proof the run's assembled product works, and this skill never certifies run-completion. That is gated by the acceptance-contract scripts the marathon engine invokes, not here: scripts/contract/start_gate.py fails closed at run start unless the contract is frozen before decomposition, scripts/contract/spawn_verifier.py is the sole custody chokepoint that spawns the cold non-implementing verifier against the assembled product, and scripts/contract/complete_gate.py fails closed unless that verifier's completion record validates. Merging here never substitutes for those gates. This note is part of the constitutional floor (FLOOR.md); the retro may propose changes but never self-apply them.
Ready Criteria (ALL must be true)
The PR is merge-ready only when all six are simultaneously true. Re-check from the top after every push — a fix can reopen an earlier criterion.
- Branch in sync — no merge conflicts with base branch
- CI passing — all checks succeed (or skipped)
- All inline comments addressed — see thread resolution rules
- No unaddressed conversation comments — actionable feedback responded to
- All review threads resolved — no unresolved threads remain
- Re-reviewing bots have reviewed the head SHA - every bot the project's Marathon Configuration flags
Re-reviews on push: yeshas completed its pass on the current head SHA. For a bot withoutRe-review check name, at least one of its reviews must carry that head SHA as itscommit_id(a review of an earlier commit does not count), and that is the limit of this path: any review on the head SHA satisfies it, a placeholder or rate-limited one included, so a bot whose pass must be proven belongs onRe-review check name. For a bot configured withRe-review check name, only the check run of that name on the head SHA decides (its submitted reviews do not: the check run is what turns red when the reviewer exits with an error after posting), and that run has four observable states: in progress (or not yet created) - keep waiting until the max wait expires; completed with conclusionsuccess- the criterion is satisfied for that bot, and the marathon skill'sCommit:-line spot check still applies before merging on it; completed with conclusionskipped- the bot is not applicable to this PR (a reviewer job that skips some actors, such as Dependabot, by design), so the criterion is satisfied for that bot with no warning; completed with any other conclusion (failure, cancelled, neutral, timed_out) - a settled verdict that the bot did not complete a green pass, so the criterion takes the warning path at once. Any push restarts the wait. The wait is bounded per bot by that bot'sMax wait for re-review, measured from when the head commit was pushed (the earliest check-suite creation on the head SHA, not the commit's committer date, which predates the push and resets on rebase); whenRe-reviews on push: yesandMax wait for re-reviewis absent, the bound is 15m. If no check suite exists on the head SHA, fall back to the head commit's committer date as a floor - explicitly not the push time, it only guarantees the bound always expires. When the max wait expires before the bot completes, or a check-name bot's run settles on a conclusion other thansuccessorskipped, the criterion passes with a warning recorded in the merge record (the PR comment or report that accompanies the merge) naming the bot, the head SHA, and what was observed: for a check-name bot, the check run's conclusion on that SHA (or that no completed run exists) and, so the record never contradicts the reviews endpoint, whether path (a) shows a review of that head SHA anyway; for a review bot, that no review of that SHA was found. The record states that the bot did not complete a green pass, not that it did not review. Merge proceeds with that warning; nothing holds forever on an advisory bot. Bots withoutRe-reviews on push: yesare never waited on, so a project with no such flags sees no change.
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 · +27 lines · +8 tokens per session cda687c85a3a
- 1mo ago First seen · 221 lines · 123 tokens per session scan A ff6c86866dd1
pr-review-merge is a skill published in the GitHub repository bjcoombs/ai-native-toolkit (32 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 131 tokens to every session and 4,787 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
babysit
Watch an open PR — fix failing CI, handle the straightforward review comments, and drive it to a mergeable state. Claude Code analog of Cursor's built-in /babysit. Use after opening a PR when the user wants the agent to shepherd it without re-prompting.
make-pr-easy-to-review
Prepare PRs for review by cleaning noisy history, improving PR descriptions, and adding reviewer guidance without changing code behavior. Use for "make this easy to review", "tidy this PR", "clean up commits", or "annotate the diff".
pr-describe
Write a pull-request title and body from the current branch's commits and diff against the base branch. Invoke when the user asks to open a PR, draft a PR description, or summarize a branch.
seal
Ships a feature — simplify pass, certify, commit, PR, CI monitoring, review loop, merge. Use when a feature branch is verified and ready to ship.
pr-workflow
How to open a pull request that gets reviewed, and how to review one properly. Use when opening, describing, reviewing, updating or merging a PR.
github
GitHub source control and collaboration platform - lets an agent read pull requests, commits, repository metadata, and CI workflow results to support engineering review and documentation.