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 cblecker/claude-plugins --skill address-pr-feedbackgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cblecker/claude-pluginsWrote 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/cblecker/claude-plugins/address-pr-feedback)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/cblecker/claude-plugins/address-pr-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cblecker/claude-plugins/address-pr-feedback/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/cblecker/claude-plugins/address-pr-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cblecker/claude-plugins/address-pr-feedback.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 | $0.00023 | $0.02447 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00979 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00489 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00245 |
Grade A, and why
address-pr-feedback scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 272 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Address PR Feedback
Systematically collect, analyze, score, and plan execution for pull request review feedback, then post reply comments to GitHub.
Phase 0: Branch Validation
Branch context, collected at invocation:
- Current branch: !
git branch --show-current - Remote mainline lookup: !
bash -c 'out=$(git ls-remote --symref origin HEAD 2>&1); printf "%s\nexit_status:%s\n" "$out" $?' - Cached mainline fallback: !
git symbolic-ref --short refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null || echo none
Determine the mainline branch from the remote lookup output above
(authoritative — the cached local origin/HEAD can be stale after a
default-branch rename):
exit_status:0→ the mainline is the branch name in theref: refs/heads/<branch>line. If no such line exists, display "Error: Could not determine the mainline branch." and stop execution.- Non-zero exit status with a transport-level connectivity error in the
output ("Could not resolve host", "Connection refused", "Connection timed
out", "Network is unreachable", "Operation timed out") → use the cached
mainline fallback, stripping the
origin/prefix; if it showsnone, display the error above and stop. "unable to access" qualifies only when paired with such a transport cause — with an HTTP status (401, 403, etc.) it is an authentication failure, not connectivity. - Non-zero exit status for any other reason (authentication, invalid remote, configuration) → fail closed: display the captured git error and stop. A stale cached branch must not become authoritative for this safety check
- If the current branch matches the mainline branch:
- Display: "Error: You're on the mainline branch. Please checkout a feature branch and retry this skill."
- Stop execution
Then ensure plan mode is active:
- If plan mode is not already active, call
EnterPlanModeto switch into planning before collecting and analyzing feedback - If plan mode is already active (check for "Plan mode is active" in system context), proceed directly
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.
- 1mo ago Changed · -2 lines b67f5ccd9ba9
- 1mo ago First seen · 274 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A cbb2d7b26ac9
address-pr-feedback is a skill published in the GitHub repository cblecker/claude-plugins (5 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 2,447 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-implement-phase
Implements triaged review actions, commits focused fixes, and posts Done plus resolves threads. Use when the user wants only the implementation phase of the review-framework workflow.
pr
Draft a PR body from OMC's paper trail — the smallest visual that proves the change, evidence consumed from the verify protocol (never re-collected), reversibility from the ADR test on the diff, glossary language throughout.
merge-batch
Prepare and merge an owner-selected PR batch with contributor credit and exact-candidate admission. Use for a pasted PR list; combined focused validation is diagnostic, and every actual landing still requires its applicable checks and authorization.
otto-pr-review-loop
Run Polly and OCR on a PR until all findings settle.
engram-branch-pr
PR creation workflow for Engram following the issue-first enforcement system. Trigger: When creating a pull request, opening a PR, or preparing changes for review.
verify-behavior
Verify or reproduce visible product behavior by driving the real UI with pi-computer-use's checked tools, requiring verified expect postconditions and durable state evidence for meaningful UI flows. Use when triage needs visual reproduction, implementation needs behavioral proof, review needs interactive confirmation…