Cherry Studio is a desktop application for Windows, Mac, and Linux that brings together conversations with multiple language-model providers, local models, configurable assistants, document processing, and connected tools. It is for people who want one workspace for AI chat, productivity, and agent tasks, and the catalogue add-ons add skills, agents, instructions, and plugins for that workflow.
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 CherryHQ/cherry-studio --skill gh-pr-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/CherryHQ/cherry-studioWrote 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/cherryhq/cherry-studio/gh-pr-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/cherryhq/cherry-studio/gh-pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cherryhq/cherry-studio/gh-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/cherryhq/cherry-studio/gh-pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cherryhq/cherry-studio/gh-pr-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 208 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 104 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00147 | $0.03496 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00059 | $0.01398 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00699 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00350 |
Grade A, and why
gh-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 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.
The source is not reproduced here
Licensed AGPL-3.0
The repository is licensed AGPL-3.0, which this catalogue does not treat as permission to reproduce the file. Read it at the source.
What ships with it
11 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.
- agents/openai.yaml 247 B
- references/checklist-evolution.md 4.7 KB
- references/cherry-review-guidance.md 40 KB
- references/code-checklist.md 10 KB
- references/consumer-review.md 7.4 KB
- references/diagnosis.md 2.6 KB
- references/doc-checklist.md 3.8 KB
- references/judgment-matrix.md 6.8 KB
- references/local-review.md 6.2 KB
- references/pr-review.md 17 KB
- references/teams-review.md 19 KB
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 · +15 lines ef9690a82fb9
- 1mo ago First seen · 258 lines · 147 tokens per session scan A 2a8c3611696c
gh-pr-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository CherryHQ/cherry-studio (52,669 stars, last pushed today), licensed AGPL-3.0. It adds 147 tokens to every session and 3,496 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
vibe-spec-sync
Keeps specification documents and code in agreement. Audit mode finds every divergence when an implementation is claimed complete; sync mode detects spec drift in staged changes and updates the spec after user approval, so each commit is a reconciled snapshot of spec, tests, and code. Use when an implementation is…
vibe-gap-analysis
Assesses production readiness or audits a codebase against its specs. Supports quick static mode, deep 17-dimension audit, or single-dimension focus. Use before a production launch, after a major refactor, when inheriting a codebase, or when someone asks how done the project is.
vibe-quality-loop
Runs the Implement→Review→Test→Fix cycle until the work is actually clean, with evidence. Use after any non-trivial implementation and before claiming it is done.
superpowers-receiving-code-review
Got review feedback? Load BEFORE changing anything — verify each point, push back if wrong.
vibe-devil-advocate-review
Challenges a recommendation, design, large change, or any artifact submitted for hard review (spec, proposal, policy, plan) across 5 dimensions (consistency, completeness, actionability, alignment, risk), from the standards of a named senior expert in the artifact's domain and ideally from a fresh context or a…
lean-strict-verification-gate
Use when checking whether a Lean artifact can safely support a research claim.