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 boshu2/agentops --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/boshu2/agentopsWrote 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/boshu2/agentops/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/boshu2/agentops/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/boshu2/agentops/review/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/boshu2/agentops/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/boshu2/agentops/review.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 | $0.00037 | $0.01296 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00518 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00259 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00130 |
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 10d 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 — 113 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review
Give useful, supported advice on the caller's plan, design or change, in the
existing conversation. Review does not accept the subject, issue PASS, FAIL
or NOT_PROVEN, or author verdict.v2. A clear task can proceed directly with
zero mandatory skills. Neighbours: how a plan could fail is
Premortem; whether a stated claim holds is
Reality Check; an acceptance verdict is
Validate; several independent views are
Council.
Rules an unaided review misses
- Advice is not acceptance. Never present advice, agreement or a no-finding result as acceptance, even when the caller offers to skip independent review on the strength of this read. Give the advice, say plainly that it does not establish the acceptance criterion, and name what would: a fresh Validate context with the original acceptance and the exact subject (a new role in this conversation is not fresh). Never claim that validation occurred. For example, asked to approve a schema migration so it can run tonight, return the findings and add that approval needs a fresh acceptance read, which this review has not given.
- State the scope you inspected. An excerpt is not the repository. A property promised for the whole system, such as who may change what or what is never lost, cannot be established from the one location shown; name the other paths that could still violate it as not inspected.
- A no-finding result is scoped. It holds only within the inspected scope and does not prove correctness or completion.
- Every finding is located and actionable: location, consequence and a proportionate suggestion or next check. Separate observed defects from hypotheses and preferences; do not manufacture findings to fill a quota.
Advice or acceptance
Route on the caller's intended outcome, not the word "review". An explicit request for Validate, an acceptance verdict or independent proof that original acceptance is met selects acceptance; generic checking or readiness questions do not, even with criteria supplied. When settled context leaves the purpose open, ask once whether the caller wants advice or an acceptance judgment, and wait. Shared routing and handoff rules: advice or acceptance.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 10d ago Changed · +30 lines · -2 tokens per session b81750a13f25
- 20d ago Changed · -18 lines 3264ffd54b3c
- 23d ago First seen · 101 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A a356ee4f897b
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository boshu2/agentops (448 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 1,296 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-23.
Other skills, from other repositories
create-pull-request
Use when asked to create or update a PR, revise its description, or link issue references to its body. Not for multi-PR stacks: use gate-and-merge. Not for releases: use git-workflow-and-versioning.
audit-project
Run an iterative multi-agent code audit until critical and high findings are resolved. Use when the user says "audit my code", "find all the bugs", "deep code audit", "iterative review", or "review until clean".
gate-and-merge
Use when landing a queue of open PRs: gate each PR, sweep its review feedback to root cause, then merge, repair, hold, or close it. Human-only.
doubt-driven
Use when a non-trivial decision sits under uncertainty and correctness matters more than speed. Not for patch review: use review. Not for plan attacks: use load-bearing-assumption-test.
pr-review-canvas-html
Use when asked to render a GitHub PR as a standalone review HTML page. Fetches PR data via gh API, renders diffs with move detection, and serves the artifact on a local port. Not for Cursor Canvas output — use pr-review-canvas.
resolve
Use when addressing review feedback in analyze or reception mode, or handling GitHub PR feedback in autonomous, interactive, or summary mode for a named PR target. Classifies, applies, replies, or summarizes comments.