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 cognesy/instructor-php --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cognesy/instructor-phpWrote 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/cognesy/instructor-php/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/cognesy/instructor-php/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cognesy/instructor-php/code-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/cognesy/instructor-php/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cognesy/instructor-php/code-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 | $0.00023 | $0.00123 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00049 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00025 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00012 |
Grade A, and why
code-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
When reviewing code, check for:
- Logic errors and unhandled edge cases
- Security vulnerabilities (injection, XSS, auth issues)
- Performance issues (N+1 queries, unnecessary allocations)
- Style consistency with the rest of the codebase
Provide specific line references and concrete fix suggestions. Focus on $ARGUMENTS if provided.
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 · 17 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A ecdf281b36b2
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository cognesy/instructor-php (328 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
resolve-review-pr
Review an existing fix PR using the audited repro and full diff, preserving branch and approval rules.
cocoreview
CocoReview — structured code review with six-severity findings vocabulary, progressive disclosure architecture, and universal anti-pattern baseline. Invoked via $review [file] [--complexity] [--security] [--architecture] [--language ].
review-prs
Review a GitHub pull request in the googleapis/mcp-toolbox repo against the team's reviewer checklist: PR title/description conventions, linked issue, logic errors and unhandled edge cases, breaking changes, test coverage, docs updates, security (input handling), and new dependencies. Use whenever a maintainer asks…
reproduce-bug
Reproduce a reported bug in googleapis/mcp-toolbox and decide whether it is real, delivering an evidence-backed verdict: confirmed, already fixed, misconfiguration, client-side, works as intended, not reproducible, or blocked. Use whenever a maintainer asks you to reproduce, verify, confirm, or investigate a bug…
triage-issues
Triage GitHub issues in the googleapis/mcp-toolbox repo: propose the correct labels (type / priority / product / status), check for duplicates, verify a bug has enough info to act on, and draft a triage comment. Use whenever a maintainer asks you to triage, label, categorize, prioritize, or "look at" an issue (or a…
resolve-handoff
Emit the complete Resolve handoff with exact modes, outcomes, test evidence, and publication state.