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 carofi-auto/agent-skills --skill pr-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/carofi-auto/agent-skillsWrote 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/carofi-auto/agent-skills/pr-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/carofi-auto/agent-skills/pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/carofi-auto/agent-skills/pr-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/carofi-auto/agent-skills/pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/carofi-auto/agent-skills/pr-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 | $0.00087 | $0.01758 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00044 | $0.00879 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00352 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00176 |
Grade A, and why
pr-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 — 179 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Review — Pre-Raise Self Review
Attribution: Coverage and severity model from the PR & Code Review Playbook by Mohamed ElZanaty (Engineering Manager, VOXI — vfuk-digital/Digital). Review standard from Google's Code Review Developer Guide (google.github.io/eng-practices).
Run this on your own branch before you raise the PR. It reads your local diff, reviews every changed line the way a senior reviewer would, and reports only findings worth acting on — so the PR you raise is already clean. No GitHub, no CI, no posting: it runs locally and reports back to you.
When this skill activates
- "Review my changes" / "review my diff" / "self-review this branch"
- "Is this ready to raise a PR?" / "what would a reviewer flag?"
- After finishing a feature/fix, before pushing or opening the PR
The standard
Judge the change against one question: does this improve the overall code health of the system? Report what blocks that. Do not demand perfection — a clean, correct, self-contained change is ready, even if not ideal.
Signal over noise. This is a self-review tool, not a linter. Report real issues a senior engineer would stop on. Suppress nitpicks a human wouldn't bother raising, and anything a linter/typechecker/CI already catches.
Phase 0 — Get the diff
- Read the change.
git diff <base>...HEAD(or staged:git diff --cached).<base>= the branch you'll target (usuallymain/master/develop). - Read the intent. Infer what this change is for from the diff and commit messages. If intent is genuinely unclear, say so — don't invent it.
- Classify — picks what to weight hardest:
| Type | Weight hardest on |
|---|---|
| Feature | Design, logic correctness, tests, separation of concerns, UX/a11y |
| Bugfix | Root cause vs symptom, regression test added, blast radius |
| Refactor | Behavior preserved (no functional change smuggled in), test parity |
| API / schema | Backward compatibility, versioning, consumer impact |
| Config / infra | Secrets, rollback path, environment differences |
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 First seen · 179 lines · 87 tokens per session scan A 0de217ad1264
pr-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository carofi-auto/agent-skills (5 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 87 tokens to every session and 1,758 once invoked, about $0.0004 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…