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 chinkan/RustFox --skill caveman-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/chinkan/RustFoxWrote 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/chinkan/rustfox/caveman-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/chinkan/rustfox/caveman-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/chinkan/rustfox/caveman-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 | $0.00072 | $0.00670 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00335 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00134 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00067 |
Grade A, and why
caveman-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 8d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to caveman-review — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 55 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Write code review comments terse and actionable. One line per finding. Location, problem, fix. No throat-clearing.
Rules
Format: L<line>: <problem>. <fix>. — or <file>:L<line>: ... when reviewing multi-file diffs.
Severity prefix (optional, when mixed):
🔴 bug:— broken behavior, will cause incident🟡 risk:— works but fragile (race, missing null check, swallowed error)🔵 nit:— style, naming, micro-optim. Author can ignore❓ q:— genuine question, not a suggestion
Drop:
- "I noticed that...", "It seems like...", "You might want to consider..."
- "This is just a suggestion but..." — use
nit:instead - "Great work!", "Looks good overall but..." — say it once at the top, not per comment
- Restating what the line does — the reviewer can read the diff
- Hedging ("perhaps", "maybe", "I think") — if unsure use
q:
Keep:
- Exact line numbers
- Exact symbol/function/variable names in backticks
- Concrete fix, not "consider refactoring this"
- The why if the fix isn't obvious from the problem statement
Examples
❌ "I noticed that on line 42 you're not checking if the user object is null before accessing the email property. This could potentially cause a crash if the user is not found in the database. You might want to add a null check here."
✅ L42: 🔴 bug: user can be null after .find(). Add guard before .email.
❌ "It looks like this function is doing a lot of things and might benefit from being broken up into smaller functions for readability."
✅ L88-140: 🔵 nit: 50-line fn does 4 things. Extract validate/normalize/persist.
❌ "Have you considered what happens if the API returns a 429? I think we should probably handle that case."
✅ L23: 🟡 risk: no retry on 429. Wrap in withBackoff(3).
Auto-Clarity
Drop terse mode for: security findings (CVE-class bugs need full explanation + reference), architectural disagreements (need rationale, not just a one-liner), and onboarding contexts where the author is new and needs the "why". In those cases write a normal paragraph, then resume terse for the rest.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 8d ago First seen · 55 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A 9ef09065f26b
caveman-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository chinkan/RustFox (7 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 670 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to caveman-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-pr
Review GitHub pull requests. Use when user says "review PR", "review pull request", or "/review-pr".
spawn-reviewers
Spawn and collect the reviewer fleet at stage20spawnreviewers. Consumes spawn.json.spec (the authoritative spawn spec from derive-spawn-spec / derive-static-spec), resolves GRAPHPROJECT, builds per-agent prompts from the per-agent template + role suffixes (Bug Hunter A/B, Unified Auditor, Domain Critics, Impact…
verify-findings
Dispatch and collect the finding-verifier fleet at stage23verifyfindings (PLN-722). Reads verifymanifest.json (written by stage22bverifyprepare), spawns one falsify-oriented verifier Task per toverify[] entry with mode-specific Task scheduling (GitHub mode dispatches verifiers synchronously; local mode uses parallel…
singleton-dispatch
PLN-725 single-agent dispatch for stage11extractsignals and stage15coveragecritic. After each prepare stage writes its manifest, this skill reads the status field (cachehit / skipped / needsagent) and, only on needsagent, spawns one synchronous singleton Task that writes the by-convention pln725.json output the…
codex-review
Run Codex to review a plan file and return structured feedback with a verdict. Triggers on: debate loop Codex review rounds. Returns VERDICT:APPROVED or VERDICT:NEEDSCHANGES plus CODEXSESSION token.
critic-cache
Check if critic reviews are still valid before re-running Phase 2.5 critics. Compares plan.json + critic-gates.json content hash against stored hash from last critic run. Triggers on: entering Phase 2.5, checking critic cache, before launching critics. Returns CRITICCACHEHIT to skip critics or CRITICCACHEMISS to…