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 bostonaholic/team --skill review-severity-tiersgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bostonaholic/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/bostonaholic/team/review-severity-tiers)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bostonaholic/team/review-severity-tiers"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bostonaholic/team/review-severity-tiers/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/bostonaholic/team/review-severity-tiers"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bostonaholic/team/review-severity-tiers.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 | $0.00031 | $0.00630 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00315 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
review-severity-tiers 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 6d 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 — 50 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Severity Tiers
Gate Types by Reviewer
| Reviewer | Gate Type | Blocks Ship? |
|---|---|---|
security-reviewer |
HARD | Yes — critical or high findings are non-negotiable |
verifier |
HARD | Yes — tests must pass, build must succeed |
code-reviewer |
HARD | Yes — blocking issues must be resolved |
ux-reviewer |
AUTO-FIX | REQUEST CHANGES is auto-applied in the loop (a major). Only COMMENT notes may reach you |
technical-writer |
ADVISORY | No — findings recorded, pipeline proceeds |
Severity Tiers and the Auto-Fix Boundary
This table maps Conventional Comments, security severities, and reviewer verdicts to one orchestrator action. Every finding has one tier.
| Tier | Findings in this tier | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Blocking | issue (blocking), code-reviewer REQUEST CHANGES, security CRITICAL/HIGH, any verifier failure |
Auto-fixed in the loop. Never surfaced to the user. |
| Major | ux-reviewer REQUEST CHANGES | Auto-fixed in the loop. Never surfaced to the user. |
| Minor and below | suggestion (non-blocking), nitpick (non-blocking), security MEDIUM, security LOW, technical-writer GAPS (REQUIRED and RECOMMENDED alike), any COMMENT-level note |
Recorded in the PR body's ## Review notes — never presented mid-run. |
A non-blocking finding never costs a round. Each auto-fix reruns the
implementer and all five reviewers. Blocking/Major are fixed autonomously;
Minor reaches the human in PR review, regardless of importance.
The human decides what to build and what to ship; the middle runs autonomously (principle-human-owns-the-ends).
agents/security-reviewer.mdandskills/reviewing-code/SKILL.mdagree: CRITICAL/HIGH are hard gates; MEDIUM/LOW do not block.- Technical-writer REQUIRED and RECOMMENDED are both Minor because its gate is ADVISORY.
No consult: never present findings mid-run. Loop Blocking/Major until zero;
write Minor-and-below to PR ## Review notes, tagged by reviewer.
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.
- 6d ago Changed · -39 lines · -45 tokens per session f43ce46316dc
- 8d ago Changed · +2 lines · +4 tokens per session 6366d6eff508
- 11d ago First seen · 87 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A 8045a0a75e47
review-severity-tiers is a skill published in the GitHub repository bostonaholic/team (11 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 630 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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
codebase-sync
Convention discovery and rule generation from codebase analysis. Scans project structure, builds search indexes, identifies patterns, and generates enforceable rules.
code-review-patterns
Multi-dimensional code assessment across security, quality, performance, and maintainability with confidence-gated reporting (>=80%) and Router Contract generation.
code-review-orchestration
6-agent parallel code review orchestration covering architecture, security, performance, testing, quality, and documentation dimensions with weighted scoring.
code-review-pipeline
Multi-dimensional code review across correctness, security, performance, and maintainability with confidence-gated reporting and remediation loops.
plan-implementation
Disciplined execution of approved plans with step-by-step verification, phase checkpoints, failure investigation, and mandatory code/security reviews.
quality-checklist
Validate implementation quality through custom checklists, scoring against constitution standards, specification coverage, and producing remediation recommendations.