Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to copperheadhq/copperhead. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/copperheadhq/copperhead/main/.claude/skills/pr-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/copperheadhq/copperheadWrote 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/copperheadhq/copperhead/pr-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/copperheadhq/copperhead/pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/copperheadhq/copperhead/pr-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, 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 33 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 | $0.00044 | $0.02604 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.01302 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00521 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00260 |
Grade A, and why
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 62 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review a pull request for this repository. Present the findings report to the user, and also post it to the PR automatically as a comment (gh pr comment <n>) so the review is recorded on GitHub. Do NOT submit a formal review (gh pr review --approve / --request-changes) unless the user explicitly asks: those affect merge gating, whereas a plain comment does not.
Input: a PR number or URL. If omitted, run gh pr list --json number,title,author,headRefName and either auto-select the single open PR or use the AskUserQuestion tool to let the user pick. Always announce which PR is being reviewed. If the PR is a draft, still review it, but present the report in-session only and do not post the comment unless the user explicitly asked for a draft to be reviewed (draft comments go stale immediately).
Working-tree isolation (non-negotiable): the review runs in a throwaway git worktree, never in the user's checkout. Never run gh pr checkout, git checkout, git switch, git stash, git reset, or any other command that moves HEAD, the index, or a tracked file in the main checkout: the user may be mid-edit on an unrelated branch, and a review is read-only work. Everything the review needs (the PR's files, the suite, coverage) happens under the worktree path from step 0, and every file path in the report is written repo-relative (src/agent/loop.ts:42), never as a worktree path. If the worktree cannot be created, say so and fall back to a diff-only review with tests and coverage reported as "not measured"; do not fall back to checking the PR out in place.
Steps
-
Set up the review worktree:
node .claude/skills/pr-review/scripts/worktree.mjs setup <n>. It fetchesrefs/pull/<n>/headinto a private ref (so fork PRs work and no branch moves), parks it detached under the OS temp dir, and symlinksnode_modulesfrom the main checkout so the suite can run without an install. Its last line isworktree: <path>: that path is<WT>below. If the script reports that the PR changespackage-lock.json, re-run it with--installbefore trusting any suite result. Announce that the main checkout stays on its current branch. Details and failure modes:references/worktree.md. -
Gather the change
gh pr view <n> --json title,body,author,baseRefName,headRefName,files,additions,deletions,mergeable,isDraft,comments, plusgh pr checks <n>for CI state. Amergeablethat is notMERGEABLEand a red or pending CI run each go in the metrics block, and a failing required check is at least a medium finding.gh pr diff <n>for the full diff; for large PRs, read it per file. Skip generated and vendored files (package-lock.json,dist/,*.snap, build output): note that they changed, but do not read them line by line or raise findings inside them.- Read the PR's code under
<WT>(that is the checkout that actually contains it). Read the skill's own files, and run its scripts, from the main checkout: a PR that edits.claude/skills/must not get to review itself with its own version of the tooling. - Prior passes and authorship: check the fetched comments for an earlier automated pr-review pass. If one exists, reference it and report only what changed since (new commits, findings now resolved or still open), not a duplicate full report. If you (the reviewer) authored any commit under review, disclose it up front and treat those findings as self-review, which warrants more skepticism, not less.
-
Metrics, scripted: start
node .claude/skills/pr-review/scripts/metrics.mjs <n> --dir <WT>in the background now and collect it before writing the report.--diris what keeps the suite, coverage, and every git read inside the worktree; without it the script measures whatever is checked out in the main tree and reports the head as not checked out. It computes the entire metrics block deterministically: area-split change size, new-vs-net surface, suite pass/skip/fail, diff coverage with the uncoveredfile:linelist, dependency changes, and the CI check state (pass/fail/pending counts plus failing required checks, viagh pr checks), each with its method stated. Add--base-testsonly when the base suite result matters and base CI does not already report it; never check out the base branch in the working tree. If the script fails, fall back to the manual method inreferences/metrics.md. Never emit a number you did not derive; report unmeasured metrics as "not measured" with the reason.
What ships with it
6 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.
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 · 62 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A ded63d171455
pr-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository copperheadhq/copperhead (65 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 2,604 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
cn-check
Install and run the Continue CLI (cn) to execute AI agent checks on local code changes. Use when asked to "run checks", "lint with AI", "review my changes with cn", or set up Continue CI locally.
requesting-code-review
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements.
code-review
Review a git diff (or working-tree changes) like a senior engineer — correctness, security, performance, readability — and return a verdict plus structured, line-anchored findings.
tura
Work in the Tura agent-runtime repository. Use for Tura architecture, Rust backend, GUI/TUI, prompts, commands, providers, sessions, documentation, tests, packaging, and release work in this directory.
grade-and-fix-daedalus
How to grade a Daedalus run (or pasted agent transcript), root-cause the failure, and ship the fix to Daedalus CORE as a stacked PR — without modifying the prompt-vault sandbox (read-only grading). Covers recurring bug archetypes (Unicode punctuation patch mismatch, syntax-vs-type mislabel, emoji box misalignment…
tlamatini-planner-trace-replay
Replay the most recent global execution planner trace from tlamatini.log and explain why each capability got the score it did.