Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to braintrustdata/bt. 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/braintrustdata/bt/main/.agents/skills/bt-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/braintrustdata/btWrote 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/braintrustdata/bt/bt-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/braintrustdata/bt/bt-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/braintrustdata/bt/bt-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/braintrustdata/bt/bt-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/braintrustdata/bt/bt-review.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 | $0.00081 | $0.01401 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.00560 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00280 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00140 |
Grade A, and why
bt-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 2mo 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 — 132 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
CLI Best Practices Review
Audit the bt CLI codebase against two reference documents:
- clig.dev guidelines — industry CLI best practices
- bt codebase patterns — established internal conventions for consistency
When to Use
- When a user asks to review, audit, or check the CLI
- When triggered via
/bt-review - After implementing new commands or subcommands
- Before releases to ensure CLI quality
Review Process
1. Scope the Review
Determine what to review:
- Full audit: All commands and subcommands
- Targeted review: Specific command or area (e.g., just
prompts, just error handling) - Diff review: Only changed files on the current branch vs main
To scope a diff review, run git diff main --name-only -- '*.rs' and focus on changed files.
2. Load Reference Documents
Read both reference files:
references/clig-checklist.md— industry CLI guidelines organized by categoryreferences/bt-patterns.md— established codebase patterns to check for consistency
3. Analyze Source Code
clig.dev Compliance
For each category in the checklist, examine relevant source files:
- Args & flags: Read
src/args.rsandsrc/main.rs— check clap derive attributes, flag naming, long/short forms - Help text: Check all
#[command]and#[arg]attributes for descriptions, examples, and help templates - Error handling: Grep for
anyhow::,.context(,eprintln!, and error types — verify human-readable messages - Output: Check stdout vs stderr usage, TTY detection, color handling, JSON output support
- Subcommands: Review
src/*/mod.rsfiles for consistency in naming and structure - Interactivity: Check
dialoguerusage for TTY guards and--no-inputsupport - Robustness: Look for timeout handling, progress indicators (
indicatif), signal handling - Config: Check env var handling (
dotenvy,clapenv features), XDG compliance
Pattern Consistency
Compare new or changed code against references/bt-patterns.md. Check:
What ships with it
2 files 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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 132 lines · 81 tokens per session scan A e123294815ef
bt-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository braintrustdata/bt (14 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 81 tokens to every session and 1,401 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"…
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…
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…
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…