Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to CES-Ltd/TitanX. 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/CES-Ltd/TitanX/main/.claude/skills/pr-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/CES-Ltd/TitanXWrote 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/ces-ltd/titanx/pr-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ces-ltd/titanx/pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ces-ltd/titanx/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/ces-ltd/titanx/pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ces-ltd/titanx/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 | $0.00054 | $0.04726 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00027 | $0.02363 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00945 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00473 |
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 9d 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 — 488 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Code Review (Local)
Perform a thorough local code review with full project context — reads source files directly, no API truncation limits.
Announce at start: "I'm using pr-review skill to review the pull request."
Usage
/pr-review [pr_number]
$ARGUMENTS may contain an optional PR number and/or --automation flag.
- Without
--automation: interactive mode (prompts for confirmation, comment, cleanup) - With
--automation: non-interactive mode (auto-post comment, auto-delete branch, output machine-readable result)
Steps
Step 1 — Determine PR Number
If $ARGUMENTS is non-empty, use it as the PR number.
Otherwise run:
gh pr view --json number -q .number
If this also fails (not on a PR branch), abort with:
No PR number provided and cannot detect one from the current branch. Usage:
/pr-review <pr_number>
Also parse --automation from $ARGUMENTS:
AUTOMATION_MODE=false
if echo "$ARGUMENTS" | grep -q -- '--automation'; then
AUTOMATION_MODE=true
fi
Step 2 — Check CI Status
gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --json statusCheckRollup \
--jq '.statusCheckRollup[] | {name: .name, status: .status, conclusion: .conclusion}'
必检 job 列表:
Code QualityUnit Tests (ubuntu-latest)Unit Tests (macos-14)Unit Tests (windows-2022)Coverage Testi18n-check
(build-test 为可选 job,不纳入必检范围。)
特殊情形: 满足以下任一条件时,跳过此步骤,直接继续:
statusCheckRollup为空(CI 从未触发)statusCheckRollup非空,但所有必检 job 均不在列表中(说明 pr-checks.yml 工作流整体未触发,如仅改动 docs/md 文件的 PR)
解析逻辑: 分三种情形处理:
Informational checks exclusion: codecov/patch and codecov/project are configured as informational: true in codecov.yml — they never block merging and must be excluded from all failure checks below. Treat them as non-existent when evaluating CI status.
情形 1 — 全部通过(所有必检 job 均满足 status == COMPLETED && conclusion == SUCCESS,且 statusCheckRollup 中无任何非 informational job 的 conclusion 为 FAILURE 或 CANCELLED;codecov/* 失败不影响此判断)
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 488 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 06ca511dd5c2
pr-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository CES-Ltd/TitanX (48 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 4,726 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
github-pr-comment
Post one exact GitHub pull-request comment through local gh, any compatible hosted connector, or the explicit human-gated MCP composition, with retry safety and independent readback.
review-skill
Inspect, safely test, and assess one Runx skill package for capability, trust, and operator readiness. Use when deciding whether to adopt, improve, reject, install, or publish a skill; its evidence-only assess runner is available when native test evidence already exists.
github-mcp-pr-review-note
Add a deterministic GitHub PR review note through the fixture MCP server.
code-reviewer
Becomes a senior code reviewer who evaluates pull requests and code changes for correctness, security, performance, and maintainability. Use when the user asks for code review, PR feedback, code quality assessment, or merge readiness evaluation. Do NOT use when writing new code, debugging runtime errors, designing…
code-review
Structured code review skill. Use when asked to "review this code", "review this PR", "check this diff", or when acting as a Hydra reviewer. Runs a multi-pass review with specialist focus areas and confidence-gated findings.
verification
Verification-before-completion discipline ensuring all success criteria are met, tests pass, and reviews complete before declaring work done.