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 bravew/trove --skill trove-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bravew/troveWrote 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/bravew/trove/trove-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bravew/trove/trove-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bravew/trove/trove-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/bravew/trove/trove-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bravew/trove/trove-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 | $0.00029 | $0.00918 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00459 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00184 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00092 |
Grade A, and why
trove-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 11d 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 — 106 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Trove · v2026.7.4
Session Init
This skill ships Trove conventions. Prefer existing project patterns over generic best practices when they conflict.
Code Review Guidelines
Review Checklist
When reviewing code, check for these categories in order:
If a PRP or implementation plan drove the change, read it first and review against its requirements. With no explicit scope, review staged changes; with a PR number, inspect the PR metadata and files; with paths, read those files in full before judging.
1. Correctness
- Does the code do what it claims to do?
- Are edge cases handled (null, empty, boundary values)?
- Are error paths handled correctly?
2. Security
- No hardcoded secrets, API keys, or credentials
- Input validation on all external data
- SQL injection prevention (parameterized queries)
- XSS prevention (proper escaping/sanitization)
- Authentication/authorization checks in place
3. Performance
- No N+1 queries
- Appropriate use of caching
- No unnecessary re-renders (React) or re-computations
- Pagination for large datasets
4. Maintainability
- Clear naming (variables, functions, files)
- Reasonable function length (under 50 lines preferred)
- No code duplication
- Appropriate abstraction level
5. Testing
- Tests cover the happy path
- Tests cover error/edge cases
- Mocks are used appropriately
- Test names describe the behavior being tested
6. Reader load
- Layers to trace — flag one-caller wrappers and indirection that exists only to forward a call; collapse them.
- State to hold — flag mutable scope wider than it needs to be.
- The <30s test: can a new reader answer "where does X come from?" and "what can change X?" without spelunking? If not, say where it breaks.
Deep mode (adversarial, optional)
On request ("tear this apart", "stress test", "find blind spots") or for sensitive surfaces, run a deeper pass: review the change through several independent lenses (correctness, security, failure modes, maintainability), optionally via read-only sub-agents on disjoint concerns. State the change's intent first so the review challenges the execution, not the goal. Synthesize one verdict and sort every finding into Act on / Consider / Noted / Dismissed. Do not silently rewrite the diff — the deliverable is the verdict. For a true multi-model cloud review, point the user at /code-review ultra.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 106 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 89490057f869
trove-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository bravew/trove (10 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 918 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…