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 chrono-meta/forge-harness --skill apex-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/chrono-meta/forge-harnessWrote 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/chrono-meta/forge-harness/apex-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/chrono-meta/forge-harness/apex-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/chrono-meta/forge-harness/apex-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/chrono-meta/forge-harness/apex-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/chrono-meta/forge-harness/apex-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00053 | $0.01704 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00852 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00341 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00170 |
Grade A, and why
apex-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 12d 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 — 191 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
apex-review — Decision-Maker Review Layer
Reviews proposals from the perspective of top-level organizational decision-makers, not field practitioners. Technically excellent and "this person will approve it" are different things.
Role distinction from hub-persona-auditor
- hub-persona-auditor: Validates reader comprehension of a finished asset (reading experience)
- apex-review: Evaluates decision-maker approval likelihood of a technical proposal (decision-making experience)
Triggers
/apex-review- "Will this work for the decision-maker?", "Will the CTO approve this?", "What do I need to present to the team lead?"
- "Review from an executive perspective", "Generate presentation slides" (when decision-maker audience is specified)
- When agent-composer identifies a task requiring a decision-maker approval gate
- "Check this before I report to my manager"
- "Does this look convincing?"
- "Find objections they might raise in advance"
- "Review before the executive briefing"
- "Do you think this will pass?"
Built-in Decision-Maker Personas
| Code | Role | Core Evaluation Criteria | Auto-Reject Triggers |
|---|---|---|---|
CTO |
Chief Technology Officer | Strategic alignment · competitive advantage · tech vision | "Everyone else is already doing this" / "Feels like a personal project" |
TD |
Technical Lead / Team Lead | Implementation risk · team capability · operational burden · cost | Vague timelines / conflicts with existing stack |
QAL |
QA Lead / Quality Owner | Quality standards · testability · rollback plan · compliance | No validation plan / failure scenarios not documented |
CONF |
Conference Organizer / External Reviewer | Novelty · demo-readiness · audience value · reproducibility | Overloaded with internal jargon / demo not possible |
If the user does not specify a target persona, it will be confirmed in Step 0.
Step 0. Receive Topic + Target
If no input is provided:
Please provide the apex-review target.
Proposal summary: (What are you seeking approval for?)
Target decision-maker: [CTO / TD (Technical Lead) / QAL (QA Lead) / CONF (Conference)] — multiple allowed
Proposal file: (provide path or paste content if available)
Output format: [HTML presentation deck (recommended) / Markdown report]
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 191 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A e42395e18348
apex-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository chrono-meta/forge-harness (14 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 1,704 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
taiyi-review
A pre-merge review guide for checking code changes, design decisions, tests, and documentation. A merge adds reviewed changes to the main code branch.
review
Use when the user wants code assessed rather than changed — "review PR 88", "is this branch ready to merge?", "look over my changes", "any problems with this diff?", "give me a code review", "what do you think of this PR?", "sanity-check this branch", "ship it?". Applies to a pull request or the current branch when…
fix
PRFlow's code-review reception skill (formerly receiving-code-review), used by the review-and-fix loop and available directly. Use when addressing review feedback already posted on a pull request — verifying findings before applying them — as distinct from /prflow:review-and-fix, which runs the review itself and then…
review-and-fix
Use when the user wants problems in a pull request or the current branch both found AND corrected — "review my changes and fix what's wrong", "clean up whatever the review turns up", "address the review feedback on this branch", "tidy this PR up before merge", "find and fix the issues here". Requires explicit fix…
docs-bootstrap-internal
Use when a codebase has no structured developer documentation yet and needs it built from scratch — "we have no docs at all", "set up internal docs for this repo", "the docs directory is a mess, start over", "create developer documentation for this codebase" — including an empty or disorganized docs directory or a…
docs-release-notes
Use when a change needs a user-visible release-note, changelog, or changeset entry — "add a release note", "add a changeset for this", "what goes in the changelog?", "write up what shipped", "note this for the next release" — or when finalizing a branch whose customer-visible features, bug fixes, or UI changes should…