Electrobun is a toolkit for building, updating, and shipping small cross-platform desktop applications written in TypeScript. Developers use its Hutch command-line tool, JavaScript runtime, and native platform layer to create and build these apps.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to blackboardsh/electrobun. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/blackboardsh/electrobun/main/.skills/review-pr/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/blackboardsh/electrobunWrote 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/blackboardsh/electrobun/review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/blackboardsh/electrobun/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/blackboardsh/electrobun/review-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/blackboardsh/electrobun/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/blackboardsh/electrobun/review-pr.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 | $0.00087 | $0.02674 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00035 | $0.01070 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00535 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00267 |
Grade A, and why
review-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 — 212 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review PR
Overview
Use this skill when the user pastes a PR link and wants a security-first assessment before running, testing, or merging it. The goal is to understand the PR intent, inspect the diff, decide whether it is safe to run, and then help with feedback, fixes, merge readiness, or a close recommendation.
This skill is discussion-first, but it should still support fast maintainer throughput. Loading the skill does not authorize guessing which PR to inspect from local branches, refs, or open worktrees. Wait for the user to paste a PR URL, review that one PR, give a concise rundown, and discuss it with the user before taking any local git actions beyond basic repository state checks.
If the maintainer is clearly trying to fly through PRs, keep the discussion short and move quickly to a decisive recommendation:
MergeCloseSupersede with direct fix
Use Supersede with direct fix when the underlying issue is legitimate but the PR implementation is too broad, changes the wrong behavior, or is close but not quite right. In that case, offer to implement the narrower fix locally and draft the close comment for the maintainer.
Workflow
0. Wait for the PR URL
- Do not infer the target PR from local branches such as
pr-*, from recent git history, or from the current worktree. - Review one PR at a time, in the order the user pastes them.
- If no PR URL has been pasted in the current discussion, ask for it and stop there.
- After the user pastes a PR URL, read it first and respond with a rundown before fetching refs, checking out branches, or diffing local PR branches.
1. Read the PR first
- Read the PR description and discussion before touching the branch.
- Capture the claimed intent, test plan, linked issue, and any mention of permissions, downloads, shell execution, networking, updater behavior, or native code.
- If the description is missing or inaccessible, say so explicitly and continue with the code review.
- The first substantive reply after reading should be a rundown for discussion with the user:
- what the PR claims to do
- what parts of the codebase it likely touches
- which runtime host or VM should be used for build/run/test work
- obvious security or runtime-risk areas to focus on
- any missing context or questions
- Do not assume the user wants immediate local branch inspection. Discuss first, then inspect locally if it will materially help the review.
- If the user is clearly in rapid triage mode, keep this rundown to a few lines and then continue with local diff inspection.
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 · 212 lines · 87 tokens per session scan A a00ef21f6c0a
review-pr is a skill published in the GitHub repository blackboardsh/electrobun (12,970 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 87 tokens to every session and 2,674 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
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…