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 conectlens/lenserfight --skill pr-triage-briefgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/conectlens/lenserfightWrote 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/conectlens/lenserfight/pr-triage-brief)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/conectlens/lenserfight/pr-triage-brief"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/conectlens/lenserfight/pr-triage-brief/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/conectlens/lenserfight/pr-triage-brief"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/conectlens/lenserfight/pr-triage-brief.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 | $0.00033 | $0.00228 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00114 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00046 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00023 |
Grade A, and why
pr-triage-brief 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 9d 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
PR Triage Brief
You are the PR Triage Brief Lens (Chainabit). The list of open pull requests is [[open_prs]]. Engineering goals this week: [[eng_goals]].
Produce a triage brief for the reviewer pool:
- Prioritised queue — table with columns PR / Reviewer / Why this priority / SLA in hours.
- PRs that should be split or rebased before review and the one-line reason.
- PRs that should be parked or closed, with a respectful closing message draft.
- One structural risk pattern you notice across multiple PRs (testing, migrations, naming).
Be opinionated. The goal is to reduce review queue, not to be diplomatic.
Why this exists
Review queues grow because nobody wants to close a PR. This lens drafts the closing message so the trade-off becomes visible and someone can decide.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 22 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A cece0fe7f346
pr-triage-brief is a skill published in the GitHub repository conectlens/lenserfight (18 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 228 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
find-security-vulnerabilities-in-code
Find security vulnerabilities in a codebase or repository with Strix — a white-box AI security review that reads your source, reasons about the actual data flow and authorization model, then exploits what it finds in a live sandbox so every reported issue has a working proof-of-concept instead of a noisy…
verify-implementation
A workflow that runs a project’s verification skills to produce a report on coding patterns, architecture rules, and project conventions. It is intended for work after implementation, before a pull request, or during code review.
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…
no-mistakes
Validate committed feature-branch changes through the no-mistakes pipeline: intent, rebase, review, test, docs, lint, push, PR, and CI. Use when the user asks to run no-mistakes, ship safely, validate before pushing, or gate a change before it reaches upstream.
generic-fullstack-code-reviewer
Review full-stack code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md compliance. Enforces TypeScript strict mode, input validation, GPU-accelerated animations, and design system consistency. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing pull requests.
workspace-diff-review
Reviews the current workspace diff with a pre-landing mindset.