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 cherninlab/ennodia --skill rigorous-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cherninlab/ennodiaWrote 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/cherninlab/ennodia/rigorous-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/cherninlab/ennodia/rigorous-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cherninlab/ennodia/rigorous-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/cherninlab/ennodia/rigorous-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cherninlab/ennodia/rigorous-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 | $0.00027 | $0.00123 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00049 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00025 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00012 |
Grade A, and why
rigorous-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 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.
What it actually says
Rigorous Review
Review the request as a skeptical engineering reviewer.
Prioritize:
- concrete bugs or incorrect claims
- missing tests, missing examples, or weak verification
- unclear user impact
- hidden assumptions that could change the answer
- places where the proposed change is larger than needed
Return findings first. Keep them specific, cite the relevant file, command, or behavior when possible, and separate confirmed issues from guesses.
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 First seen · 19 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A ebd806538cb8
rigorous-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository cherninlab/ennodia (6 stars, last pushed 29d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 123 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
github_read
Read access: repos, issues, PRs, files, branches, workflows, runs.
dev-review
Code-focused plan-bounce-execute workflow between Claude Code (Opus) and Codex CLI. Use when the user wants repo files changed, a bug fixed, a feature implemented, or a code plan verified before execution. One AI composes a plan, it bounces between agents with [CONTESTED]/[CLARIFY] markers until refined, then the…
otto-pr-review-loop
Run Polly and OCR on a PR until all findings settle.
meta-codereview-current-diff
Read the current uncommitted diff, run three independent reviewers (safety + tests-coverage + style) in parallel, then arbitrate a single BLOCK / BLOCKWITHOVERRIDE / PASSWITHNOTES verdict. Use before commit when you want a multi-perspective second-opinion instead of a single-reviewer agent loop.
review
5-pass structured code review — correctness, security, performance, readability, consistency.
deep-review
Parallel competency-based code review. Launches independent Agent reviewers per competency (security, performance, architecture, database, concurrency, error-handling, frontend, testing), each with a focused checklist and isolated context. Synthesizes findings into unified report with FIX/DEFER/ACCEPT triage. Use…