Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to cgutiguti/gmail-mcp-server. 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/cgutiguti/gmail-mcp-server/main/.claude/skills/pr-review-sop/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cgutiguti/gmail-mcp-serverWrote 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/cgutiguti/gmail-mcp-server/pr-review-sop)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/cgutiguti/gmail-mcp-server/pr-review-sop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cgutiguti/gmail-mcp-server/pr-review-sop/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/cgutiguti/gmail-mcp-server/pr-review-sop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cgutiguti/gmail-mcp-server/pr-review-sop.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 | $0.00065 | $0.01638 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00819 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00328 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00164 |
Grade A, and why
pr-review-sop 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 — 107 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR & Issue Review SOP
Branch Workflow
Two-branch model: main (stable) and experimental (staging).
- Before starting a new batch of PR reviews/changes: merge
experimental→mainIF the experiment is confirmed successful. If no evidence, ask the user. - PR merges and own changes go into
experimentalfirst. Never merge PRs directly intomain. - After a batch is complete on
experimental: wait for user confirmation, then mergeexperimental→main. - After every push to any branch: run
gh run list --branch {branch} --limit 1and verify CI passes. If CI fails, fix immediately — do NOT leave broken CI for the user to discover. This applies to everygit pushin the session, not just merges.
PR Review Checklist (All Steps Mandatory)
Step 1: Read All Comments and Reviews
- Fetch PR comments:
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{N}/comments - Fetch review comments:
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{N}/reviews - Fetch issue-level comments: included in
gh pr view --json comments - Summarize unresolved discussions or requests from repo owner.
Step 2: Check Labels
- Check for labels: "help wanted", "needs help", "good first issue", etc.
- If "help wanted" / "needs help": assess if anyone volunteered, if PR is stale, if requested help was provided.
Step 3: Security Audit (Conditional)
- Skip security audit for PRs with "help wanted" label that are still waiting for community testing/volunteers. These PRs are parked — auditing them wastes resources. Report a one-liner instead: "PR #N: still waiting for community help, no action needed."
- For all other PRs: run comprehensive security audit using
security-auditorsubagent. - Explicitly report verdict: "Security audit: PASS" or "Security audit: FAIL — [findings]"
- Never present a PR review to user without a completed security audit (unless skipped per above).
- For FAIL verdicts: list all findings with severity (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/INFO).
- Local MCP threat model: This is a local stdio MCP server (user self-hosts on own PC, not remote/hosted). The LLM client already has full filesystem/shell access. Path traversal, filename injection, and local XSS are NOT security issues in this context — the "attacker" (LLM) already has more powerful tools (Bash, Write). Only flag issues that represent actual risk in the local threat model (e.g., credential leaks to third parties, network-exposed endpoints, dependency supply chain). Do NOT flag local filesystem operations as security vulnerabilities.
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 · 107 lines · 65 tokens per session scan A ea9b19ebf00f
pr-review-sop is a skill published in the GitHub repository cgutiguti/gmail-mcp-server (0 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 65 tokens to every session and 1,638 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 2026-08-31.
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…