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 reviewing-documentationgit 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/reviewing-documentation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bostonaholic/team/reviewing-documentation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bostonaholic/team/reviewing-documentation/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/reviewing-documentation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bostonaholic/team/reviewing-documentation.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 | $0.00028 | $0.00602 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00301 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00120 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00060 |
Grade A, and why
reviewing-documentation 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 3d 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 — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewing Documentation
Apply skills/writing-prose/SKILL.md, compare the diff with existing docs, and
classify each gap.
Applying Prose Principles to Reviews
When the technical-writer agent identifies documentation gaps or assesses documentation quality, apply the writing-prose principles:
-
Classify by impact. Weight readability and accuracy by affected readers.
-
Name the failure mode. Cite the violated rule and its reader effect.
-
Suggest direction, not a rewrite. The producer owns edits.
-
Record what works. A problem-only report is incomplete.
Documentation-Gap Review Process
The technical-writer's procedure for reviewing a diff against existing documentation:
-
Read the diff. Run
git diff HEAD~1(or the applicable range) to understand what changed. -
Inventory existing documentation. Search for:
- Project README files (
**/README*) - Documentation directories (
docs/,doc/) - Inline documentation (JSDoc, docstrings, type definitions)
- API documentation (OpenAPI specs, route comments)
- Configuration documentation (environment variable docs, setup guides)
- Changelog or release notes
- Project README files (
-
Analyze the changes for documentation impact:
- New public APIs — Functions, classes, endpoints, CLI commands, or configuration options that are part of the public interface.
- Changed behavior — Existing functionality that now works differently.
- Removed functionality — Features, APIs, or options that no longer exist.
- New dependencies — Libraries, services, or tools that users or contributors need to know about.
- Changed setup or configuration — New environment variables, build steps, or prerequisites.
-
Cross-reference. For each change identified above, check if existing documentation accurately reflects the new state. Look for:
- Documentation that references removed code or old behavior
- Code examples that no longer work
- Setup instructions that are now incomplete
- Type definitions or interfaces that changed but whose docs did not
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.
- 3d ago Changed · -11 lines · -39 tokens per session c01ad472dbb8
- 9d ago First seen · 86 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A d5f9b7e55d3c
reviewing-documentation is a skill published in the GitHub repository bostonaholic/team (11 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 602 once invoked, about $0.0001 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-pipeline
Multi-dimensional code review across correctness, security, performance, and maintainability with confidence-gated reporting and remediation loops.
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.
adversarial-review
Fresh adversarial code review with binary PASS/FAIL verdicts, evidence citations, and anchoring bias prevention via fresh reviewer spawning.
orchestrated-execution
Execute work units through the rigorous 4-phase Metaswarm cycle (Implement -> Validate -> Adversarial Review -> Commit) with independent quality gate enforcement.