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 ccarvalho-eng/codex-elixir-phoenix --skill elixir-phoenix-pr-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ccarvalho-eng/codex-elixir-phoenixWrote 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/ccarvalho-eng/codex-elixir-phoenix/elixir-phoenix-pr-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ccarvalho-eng/codex-elixir-phoenix/elixir-phoenix-pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ccarvalho-eng/codex-elixir-phoenix/elixir-phoenix-pr-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00024 | $0.01003 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00502 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00201 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00100 |
Grade A, and why
elixir-phoenix-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 7d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- rb:pr-review — 86% identical, 38 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 133 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Review Response
Fetch PR review comments, categorize them, draft responses, and optionally apply code fixes.
Usage
`elixir-phoenix-pr-review` 42 # Address comments on PR #42
`elixir-phoenix-pr-review` 42 --fix # Address + apply code fixes
`elixir-phoenix-pr-review` https://... # Full URL also works
Arguments
$ARGUMENTS = PR number (or URL), optionally followed by --fix.
Workflow
Step 1: Fetch PR Context
Run gh pr view {number} --json title,body,state,baseRefName,headRefName for PR metadata.
Run gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/comments --paginate and gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/reviews --paginate for all review comments.
Run gh pr diff {number} for the diff context.
Parse the PR number from $ARGUMENTS. If a URL, extract the
number from it. Detect --fix flag.
Step 2: Categorize Comments
Group each comment into one of these categories:
| Category | Signal | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Code change | "should be", "change to", "use X instead" | Draft fix + response |
| Question | "why", "what if", "how does" | Draft explanation |
| Nitpick | "nit:", style-only, formatting | Quick acknowledgment |
| Praise | "nice", "good", "LGTM" | No action needed |
| Discussion | Architecture, trade-offs, alternatives | Draft thoughtful response |
Step 3: Map to Code Locations
For each code-change comment:
- Find the file and line from the comment's
pathandposition - Read the current code at that location
- Understand the reviewer's suggestion in context
- Check if the suggestion conflicts with Iron Laws
Step 4: Draft Responses
For each comment, draft a response following patterns in
references/response-patterns.md.
Present ALL draft responses to the user for review:
## PR #{number}: {title}
### {n} comments to address
**Code changes ({n}):**
1. {file}:{line} — {reviewer suggestion} → {proposed fix}
**Questions ({n}):**
1. {question summary} → {draft answer}
**Nitpicks ({n}):**
1. {nit} → Acknowledged
**Discussion ({n}):**
1. {topic} → {draft response}
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 133 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 15d01b05b01b
elixir-phoenix-pr-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ccarvalho-eng/codex-elixir-phoenix (11 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 1,003 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
writing-review-packets
Create or revise Reviews packet markdown for a code diff, including section strategy, prose, hunk references, validation, and pushing packet revisions with the Reviews CLI. Use when the user asks to write a review packet, organize a diff for review, add prose around hunk refs, update a packet for a new patchset, or…
using-reviews-locally
Run and use the Reviews app locally, including server startup, port checks, local token setup, CLI config, pushing local reviews or new patchsets, and Codex workflow conventions. Use when the user asks to spin up Reviews, push a local review packet or revision, mint/access local API tokens, debug localhost review…
reviews-overview
Explain the Reviews platform to a general agent: what Reviews provides, when to use it during human-in-the-loop or agent-driven development, how review packets structure a diff for humans, and how Reviews can precede public PR creation or integrate with other review processes. Use when an agent needs to decide whether…
elixir-review
Review Elixir/Phoenix code: OTP patterns, GenServer, LiveView, fault tolerance and concurrency.
bootstrap-repo-analysis
First-time analysis of a repository with no prior reviewer outcomes. Crawl historical merged-PR review feedback with the gh CLI (plus any preloaded samples), extract the team's review norms, and synthesize the initial per-repo review-style prompt. Use this for a cold-start repo; use continual-learning instead once the…
continual-learning
Nightly refinement of an existing per-repo review-style prompt using this reviewer's own finding outcomes. Read confirmed (resolved-by-commit / thumbs-up) and dismissed (thumbs-down) findings, promote the bug patterns the team actually fixes, demote the false-positive patterns, reconcile against the current prompt…